4 ms·

It's supposed to pass the coreutils upstream tests. If it does, then that would mean the upstream tests still need work

gpm 1y ago
It... doesn't though: https://uutils.github.io/coreutils/docs/test_coverage.html https://uutils.github.io/coreutils/docs/test_coverage.html Neither this issue, which doesn't appear to be a bug at all but merely an unimplemented feature, nor the fact that uutils doesn't (yet) pass the entire testsuite, seem to me to at all be an indictment of the uutils project, merely a sign that it is incomplete. Which is hardly surprising when I get the impression it's primarily been a hobby project for a bunch of different developers. It does make me wonder about the wisdom of Ubuntu moving to it.
- cataflam 1y ago
  Wow. Maybe I'm missing something but it seems really weird to replace a tool with a rewrite that doesn't pass the test suite!
  - EraYaN 1y ago
    The non-passing test was only added like 17 hours ago: https://github.com/coreutils/coreutils/commit/14d24f7a530f587099057fa5411ebcf3cfc55e7d https://github.com/coreutils/coreutils/commit/14d24f7a530f58... So this is a good thing even for coreutils itself, they will slowly find all of these untested bits and specify behaviour more clearly and add tests (hopefully).
- blueflow 1y ago
  I mean, how long did they take to realize that the more(1) they shipped had no equivalent in GNU coreutils at all? Its from util-linux: https://github.com/uutils/coreutils/issues/8975 https://github.com/uutils/coreutils/issues/8975 Doesn't look like people who do their homework
- e2le 1y ago
  If it's not passing the test suite, then why is it even considered for inclusion in a distribution like Ubuntu? Ubuntu is likely used by 10s of millions of servers and desktops. I'm not sure why this kind of breakage is considered acceptable. Very confusing.
  - ls65536 1y ago
    Maybe the thought is that there will be more pressure now on getting all the tests to pass given the larger install base? It isn't a great way to push out software, but it's certainly a way to provide motivation. I'm personally more interested in whether the ultimate decision will be to leave these as the default coreutils implementation in the next Ubuntu LTS release version (26.04) or if they will switch back (and for what reason).
  - mort96 1y ago
    It's a part of Ubuntu 25.10 to get it ready for prime time for Ubuntu 26.04. Users who need stability should use the LTS releases. The interim releases have always been more experimental, and have always been where Canonical introduces the big changes to ensure everything's mature by the time the LTS comes around.
    - pepa65 1y ago
      Running production on non-LTS Ubuntu would be insane (unless it was a very short-term deployment on a more modern system).
    - mirashii 1y ago
      The problem is that this isn't Canonical's own stance. From https://ubuntu.com/about/release-cycle https://ubuntu.com/about/release-cycle > Every six months between LTS versions, Canonical publishes an interim release of Ubuntu, with 25.10 being the latest example. These are production-quality releases and are supported for 9 months, with sufficient time provided for users to update, but these releases do not receive the long-term commitment of LTS releases.
  - pas 1y ago
- jcranmer 1y ago
  FWIW, the first test in the coreutils test suite covering the `date -r` case was added... 5 hours ago: https://github.com/coreutils/coreutils/blob/master/tests/date/reference.sh https://github.com/coreutils/coreutils/blob/master/tests/dat... I don't know what the code coverage of coreutils' test suite is, but my guess is that it's not spectacular.
  - JuniperMesos 1y ago
    This is good, the correct behavior of coreutils is now specified a little bit more thoroughly than it was previously.
evil-olive 1y ago
yeah, based on some more digging, it looks like a test case for `date --reference` in GNU coreutils was only added a few hours ago [0] so I assume it was in response to this bug. but I don't think that should let the uutils authors off the hook - if `--reference` wasn't implemented, that should have been an error rather than silently doing the wrong thing. after even more Git spelunking, it looks like that problem goes all the way back to the initial "Partial implemantion of date" [1] commit from 2017 - it included support for `--reference` in the argument parsing, including the correct help text, but didn't do anything with it, not even a "TODO: Handle this option" comment like `--set` has. 0: https://github.com/coreutils/coreutils/commit/14d24f7a530f587099057fa5411ebcf3cfc55e7d https://github.com/coreutils/coreutils/commit/14d24f7a530f58... 1: https://github.com/uutils/coreutils/commit/41d1dfaf440eabba3001595d15aaa150eb19d207#diff-4e9c0c311083a12291320e66258a163afba04e4af79e4a57dc56fe7d73338295R211-R212 https://github.com/uutils/coreutils/commit/41d1dfaf440eabba3...
pixelbeat__ 1y ago
https://github.com/coreutils/coreutils/commit/14d24f7a5 https://github.com/coreutils/coreutils/commit/14d24f7a5 That bring GNU date(1) line coverage from 79.8% to 87.1%
1718627440 1y ago
> then that would mean the upstream tests still need work More coverage is nice, but the foremost care should be to do the right thing, not have some tests for it. Some cultures do not include testing-first and instead treat tests as a tool for edge cases. Nobody bothered to add a tests, for -r, because the did not thing of that as an edge case, but as a core behaviour.

gpm 1y ago

It... doesn't though: https://uutils.github.io/coreutils/docs/test_coverage.html https://uutils.github.io/coreutils/docs/test_coverage.html Neither this issue, which doesn't appear to be a bug at all but merely an unimplemented feature, nor the fact that uutils doesn't (yet) pass the entire testsuite, seem to me to at all be an indictment of the uutils project, merely a sign that it is incomplete. Which is hardly surprising when I get the impression it's primarily been a hobby project for a bunch of different developers. It does make me wonder about the wisdom of Ubuntu moving to it.

cataflam 1y ago
Wow. Maybe I'm missing something but it seems really weird to replace a tool with a rewrite that doesn't pass the test suite!
- EraYaN 1y ago
  The non-passing test was only added like 17 hours ago: https://github.com/coreutils/coreutils/commit/14d24f7a530f587099057fa5411ebcf3cfc55e7d https://github.com/coreutils/coreutils/commit/14d24f7a530f58... So this is a good thing even for coreutils itself, they will slowly find all of these untested bits and specify behaviour more clearly and add tests (hopefully).
blueflow 1y ago
I mean, how long did they take to realize that the more(1) they shipped had no equivalent in GNU coreutils at all? Its from util-linux: https://github.com/uutils/coreutils/issues/8975 https://github.com/uutils/coreutils/issues/8975 Doesn't look like people who do their homework
e2le 1y ago
If it's not passing the test suite, then why is it even considered for inclusion in a distribution like Ubuntu? Ubuntu is likely used by 10s of millions of servers and desktops. I'm not sure why this kind of breakage is considered acceptable. Very confusing.
- ls65536 1y ago
  Maybe the thought is that there will be more pressure now on getting all the tests to pass given the larger install base? It isn't a great way to push out software, but it's certainly a way to provide motivation. I'm personally more interested in whether the ultimate decision will be to leave these as the default coreutils implementation in the next Ubuntu LTS release version (26.04) or if they will switch back (and for what reason).
- mort96 1y ago
  It's a part of Ubuntu 25.10 to get it ready for prime time for Ubuntu 26.04. Users who need stability should use the LTS releases. The interim releases have always been more experimental, and have always been where Canonical introduces the big changes to ensure everything's mature by the time the LTS comes around.
  - pepa65 1y ago
    Running production on non-LTS Ubuntu would be insane (unless it was a very short-term deployment on a more modern system).
  - mirashii 1y ago
    The problem is that this isn't Canonical's own stance. From https://ubuntu.com/about/release-cycle https://ubuntu.com/about/release-cycle > Every six months between LTS versions, Canonical publishes an interim release of Ubuntu, with 25.10 being the latest example. These are production-quality releases and are supported for 9 months, with sufficient time provided for users to update, but these releases do not receive the long-term commitment of LTS releases.
- pas 1y ago
jcranmer 1y ago
FWIW, the first test in the coreutils test suite covering the `date -r` case was added... 5 hours ago: https://github.com/coreutils/coreutils/blob/master/tests/date/reference.sh https://github.com/coreutils/coreutils/blob/master/tests/dat... I don't know what the code coverage of coreutils' test suite is, but my guess is that it's not spectacular.
- JuniperMesos 1y ago
  This is good, the correct behavior of coreutils is now specified a little bit more thoroughly than it was previously.

evil-olive 1y ago

yeah, based on some more digging, it looks like a test case for `date --reference` in GNU coreutils was only added a few hours ago [0] so I assume it was in response to this bug. but I don't think that should let the uutils authors off the hook - if `--reference` wasn't implemented, that should have been an error rather than silently doing the wrong thing. after even more Git spelunking, it looks like that problem goes all the way back to the initial "Partial implemantion of date" [1] commit from 2017 - it included support for `--reference` in the argument parsing, including the correct help text, but didn't do anything with it, not even a "TODO: Handle this option" comment like `--set` has. 0: https://github.com/coreutils/coreutils/commit/14d24f7a530f587099057fa5411ebcf3cfc55e7d https://github.com/coreutils/coreutils/commit/14d24f7a530f58... 1: https://github.com/uutils/coreutils/commit/41d1dfaf440eabba3001595d15aaa150eb19d207#diff-4e9c0c311083a12291320e66258a163afba04e4af79e4a57dc56fe7d73338295R211-R212 https://github.com/uutils/coreutils/commit/41d1dfaf440eabba3...

pixelbeat__ 1y ago

https://github.com/coreutils/coreutils/commit/14d24f7a5 https://github.com/coreutils/coreutils/commit/14d24f7a5 That bring GNU date(1) line coverage from 79.8% to 87.1%

1718627440 1y ago

> then that would mean the upstream tests still need work More coverage is nice, but the foremost care should be to do the right thing, not have some tests for it. Some cultures do not include testing-first and instead treat tests as a tool for edge cases. Nobody bothered to add a tests, for -r, because the did not thing of that as an edge case, but as a core behaviour.