You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Uncaught exception:
...e/Dev/Luvit/discordia/discordia-fork/tests/test-date.lua:179: expected: "date could not be converted to time", received: "...l/home/Dev/Luvit/discordia/discordia-fork/libs/class.lua:16: expected minimum 0, received -31536000"
stack traceback:
[C]: in function 'assertError'
...e/Dev/Luvit/discordia/discordia-fork/tests/test-date.lua:179: in function 'fn'
[string "bundle:deps/require.lua"]:310: in function 'require'
...al/home/Dev/Luvit/discordia/discordia-fork/tests/run.lua:11: in function 'fn'
[string "bundle:deps/require.lua"]:310: in function 'require'
[string "bundle:/main.lua"]:128: in function <[string "bundle:/main.lua"]:20>
stack traceback:
[C]: in function 'error'
[string "bundle:/deps/utils.lua"]:41: in function 'assertResume'
[string "bundle:/init.lua"]:52: in function <[string "bundle:/init.lua"]:47>
[C]: in function 'xpcall'
[string "bundle:/init.lua"]:47: in function 'fn'
[string "bundle:deps/require.lua"]:310: in function <[string "bundle:deps/require.lua"]:266>
The system's clock is GMT+3.
Traced the error a bit, here os.time overflows returning a value of -31546800, here it seems like it fails to normalize it to 0 (if that was suppose to happen, don't seem it is) and here the error is raised.
Now the value passed in the test is 1969, so I suppose it is meant to raise this error? It is really expected to overflow in this case, so I guess the bug here is just the assertError call used.
Edit: At least what I assume, all of this is based on assumptions since I am not entirely sure what is the supposed behavior.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Running the tests yields the following error:
The system's clock is GMT+3.
Traced the error a bit, here os.time overflows returning a value of
-31546800
, here it seems like it fails to normalize it to 0 (if that was suppose to happen, don't seem it is) and here the error is raised.Now the value passed in the test is 1969, so I suppose it is meant to raise this error? It is really expected to overflow in this case, so I guess the bug here is just the assertError call used.
Edit: At least what I assume, all of this is based on assumptions since I am not entirely sure what is the supposed behavior.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: