[DAFFODIL-2017] Non-portable date/time test_simple_type_properties_text_calendar_13_02

• Type: Bug
• Status: Closed
• Priority: Major
• Resolution: Fixed
• Affects Version/s: 2.2.0
• Fix Version/s: 2.3.0
• Component/s: Back End, Compatibility
• Labels: ForInteroperabilityTest
• Assignee: Dave Thompson
• Reporter: Mike Beckerle
• Created: 19/Nov/18 22:28
• Updated: 20/May/21 12:34
• Resolved: 07/Feb/19 16:12

Description

Ran under IBM DFDL. The test failed.

Differences are

• IBM uses "Z" where Daffodil uses "+00:00"
• IBM shows "000" for fractional seconds where Daffodil does not

Question is: which one is correct and why. If "both" behaviors are "allowed", then we likely need a switch in Daffodil to prefer the same behavior as IBM DFDL, vs. staying with the current behavior (which we still need to preserve for existing users.)

Here's the output when running on IBM DFDL.

{{org.apache.daffodil.tdml.TDMLExceptionImpl: (Implementation: ibm)
Comparison failed.
Expected
<calendar_group><date1>2010-12-30+00:00</date1><time1>04:05:06+01:00</time1><datetime1>2010-12-30T04:05:06+00:00</datetime1></calendar_group>
Actual
<calendar_group><date1>2010-12-30Z</date1><time1>04:05:06.000+01:00</time1><datetime1>2010-12-30T04:05:06.000Z</datetime1></calendar_group>
Differences were (path, expected, actual):
(calendar_group/date1,'2010-12-30+00:00','2010-12-30Z')
(calendar_group/time1,'04:05:06+01:00','04:05:06.000+01:00')
(calendar_group/datetime1,'2010-12-30T04:05:06+00:00','2010-12-30T04:05:06.000Z')}}

The same issues arise for these tests:

test_simple_type_properties_text_calendar_13_03
test_simple_type_properties_text_calendar_13_04
test_simple_type_properties_bin_calendar_13_01
test_simple_type_properties_bin_calendar_13_02
test_length_delimited_12_01
test_length_delimited_12_02

These tests originated with IBM (a LONG time ago), though it's possible we changed them to match Daffodil behavior if we thought the behavior was correct the way we changed it.