Raise test coverage to 100%

[jugmac00]

While test coverage is already at a very good 93%, the PR #84 alone would have brought two regressions (changed log level + no more help text), as there are still some lines without coverage.

I suggest to fill the coverage gaps before continuing to work on the current open PRs.

[jugmac00]

I tried to come up with a test for...

tnefparse/tnefparse/util.py

Lines 41 to 47 in d29d976

	def systime(byte_arr, offset=0):
	ft = uint64(byte_arr, offset)
	try:
	return datetime.utcfromtimestamp((ft - EPOCH_AS_FILETIME) / HUNDREDS_OF_NANOSECONDS)
	except: # noqa: E722
	microseconds = ft / 10
	return (datetime(1601, 1, 1) + timedelta(microseconds=microseconds))

I even wrote a helper to iterate over date/time ranges, but I found no value which fails for the try block and succeeds for the except block.

The change was introduced in be35566

@Beercow @petri Maybe you know or remember why this try/except statement was introduced in the first place?

[petri]

I don't remember. But I bet this is related: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/10849717/what-is-the-significance-of-january-1-1601

[Beercow]

It has to do with an error where microseconds are too large http://statgen.us/files/software/seqpower/usr/local/lib/anaconda2/pkgs/pillow-3.1.1-py27_0/lib/python2.7/site-packages/PIL/OleFileIO.py Thank you in advance, Brian Maloney, GCIH, GCFE, GCFA

…

On Nov 28, 2020, at 12:42 PM, Jürgen Gmach ***@***.***> wrote:  I tried to come up with a test for... https://github.com/koodaamo/tnefparse/blob/d29d976e58c4faab789e6a47f726334b442a727a/tnefparse/util.py#L41-L47 I even wrote a helper to iterate over date/time ranges, but I found no value which fails for the try block and succeeds for the except block. The change was introduced in be35566 @Beercow @petri Maybe you know or remember why this try/except statement was introduced in the first place? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.

[jugmac00]

Hi @Beercow

thank you very much for getting back to me.

As you seem to have some more domain knowledge in this topic, could you give me a microsecond number which is too large, but fits the condition in the except branch?

        microseconds = ft / 10
        return (datetime(1601, 1, 1) + timedelta(microseconds=microseconds))

As I wrote above, I did not find a number on my own.

Here is the complete code snippet:

tnefparse/tnefparse/util.py

Lines 41 to 47 in f81554d

	def systime(byte_arr, offset=0):
	ft = uint64(byte_arr, offset)
	try:
	return datetime.utcfromtimestamp((ft - EPOCH_AS_FILETIME) / HUNDREDS_OF_NANOSECONDS)
	except: # noqa: E722
	microseconds = ft / 10
	return (datetime(1601, 1, 1) + timedelta(microseconds=microseconds))

[petri]

Maybe this is simply to overcome the fact that the max for python timestamps and dates is different? https://stackoverflow.com/questions/39153700/why-cant-pythons-datetime-max-survive-a-round-trip-through-timestamp-fromtim

[Beercow]

Unfortunately, I do not have the file I was working with anymore. Trying to find one that brings up the error.