Philip Oakley <philipoakley@xxxxxxx> writes:
> On 02/01/2019 18:15, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> We perhaps can use "test-tool date timestamp", like so
>>
>> check_human_date $(test-tool date timestamp "18000 seconds ago") ...
>>
>> or moving the part that munges 18000 into the above form inside
>> check_human_date helper function, e.g.
>>
>> check_human_date () {
>> commit_date=$(test-tool date timestamp "$1 seconds ago")
>> commit_date="$commit_date +0200"
>> expect=$2
>> ...
>> }
>>
>> which would let us write
>>
>> check_human_date 432000 "$THIS_YEAR_REGEX" # 5 days ago
>
>
> Just a quick bikeshed: if used, would this have a year end 5 day
> roll-over error potential, or will it always use the single date?
Hmph, interesting point. Indeed, date.c::show_date_normal() decides
to hide the year portion if the timestamp and the current time share
the same year, so on Thu Jan 3rd, an attempt to show a commit made
on Mon Dec 31st of the same week would end up showing the year, so
yes, I agree with you that the above would break.
+TODAY_REGEX='5 hours ago'
+THIS_YEAR_REGEX='[A-Z][a-z][a-z] [A-Z][a-z][a-z] [0-9]* [012][0-9]:[0-6][0-9]'
+MORE_THAN_A_YEAR_REGEX='[A-Z][a-z][a-z] [A-Z][a-z][a-z] [0-9]* [0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]'
>
> (I appreciate it is just suggestion code, not tested)
