top, w: fix uptime format #401
Conversation
Bluemangoo
force-pushed
the
fix/uptime-format
branch
from
46c9e49 to
a5588fe
Compare
src/uu/top/src/header.rs
Outdated
| ByteSize::b(memory_b).0 as f64 / unit as f64 | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| fn format_uptime_procps(up_secs: i64) -> UResult<String> { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What's the reason for using a procps suffix in the function name (and in get_formated_uptime_procps)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
to distinguish it from that of uucore
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should I keep it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, I would keep it. Currently I don't have a better idea. And we can still change it later, if necessary.
src/uu/top/src/header.rs
Outdated
| } | ||
|
|
||
| #[inline] | ||
| fn get_formated_uptime_procps() -> UResult<String> { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A typo:
| fn get_formated_uptime_procps() -> UResult<String> { | |
| fn get_formatted_uptime_procps() -> UResult<String> { |
src/uu/top/src/header.rs
Outdated
| let test_times = [ | ||
| 1, | ||
| 10, | ||
| 60, | ||
| 100, | ||
| 200, | ||
| 3600, | ||
| 5000, | ||
| 3600 * 24, | ||
| 3600 * 24 + 60, | ||
| 3600 * 24 + 3600, | ||
| ]; | ||
| let re = regex::Regex::new(r"(\d+ days?,)?\s*\d+( min|:\d+)").unwrap(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wouldn't use a regex for this test as it also matches invalid results. I think it is simpler to use (input, expected) pairs.
|
Are we planning a common crate for uutils/procps, which is similar to uucore? I think the uptime formatter are widely used in procps. As the alternative option, I would place it in |
Bluemangoo
force-pushed
the
fix/uptime-format
branch
2 times, most recently
from
e7f078e to
377c182
Compare
Bluemangoo
force-pushed
the
fix/uptime-format
branch
from
377c182 to
f15a629
Compare
Yes, I think it would make sense to have such a crate. |
|
all fixed. |
|
Thanks! |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #401 +/- ##
===========================
===========================
☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
2 participants
procps uptime format from procps differs from coreutils'.
for example:
coreutils:
procps v4.0.5:
also see coreutils/7757