Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
DPP-587 Use Timestamp instead of Instant #11183
DPP-587 Use Timestamp instead of Instant #11183
Changes from 3 commits
ab75b9d
28fd54e
f993dd1
6172fcd
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hi @rautenrieth-da , one of the canton unit tests shows that it is possible to trigger a
Long
overflow insidejava.time.Duration.toNanos
. Perhaps we could useDuration.toNanosPart
instead?When passing in a sufficiently large value you get:
triggered, e.g. on huge values such as 10K years:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for the report! That's an impressive test coverage if you test deduplication periods of 10k years 🙂
I have opened #11432 to fix this.