Title:
[ANeff] Bug for: CF vs Lucee wrt dateAdd() on numbers larger than max integer
| View in TrackerStatus/Resolution/Reason: Needs Review//
Reporter/Name(from Bugbase): Aaron Neff / ()
Created: 05/18/2018
Components: Language, Functions
Versions: 2018
Failure Type: Incorrectly functioning
Found In Build/Fixed In Build: 2018.0.01.308605 (PreRelease) /
Priority/Frequency: Normal /
Locale/System: / Windows 10 64 bit
Vote Count: 0
Issue: CF (incorrect) vs Lucee (correct) wrt dateAdd() on numbers larger than max integer
Repro:
<cfscript>
myNumber1 = 2147483647//CF=java.lang.Integer; Lucee=java.lang.Double
myNumber2 = 2147483648//CF=java.lang.Long; Lucee=java.lang.Double
myDate1 = dateAdd("l", 0, myNumber1)
myDate2 = dateAdd("l", 0, myNumber2)
writeOutput(myDate1 & myNumber1.getClass().getName() & '<br>' & myDate2 & myNumber2.getClass().getName() & '<br>' & (myDate1 < myDate2) & '<br>' & myDate1.compare(myDate2))
</cfscript>
Actual Result CF:
-----------
{ts '5881510-07-10 00:00:00'}
{ts '5877591-03-02 00:00:00'}
NO
1
-----------
Expected Result on CF (and actual result on Lucee):
-----------
{ts '5881510-07-10 00:00:00'}
{ts '5881510-07-11 00:00:00'}
true
-1
-----------
Note: I'm not so concerned w/ needing accuracy in the year 5881510.
Question: Should CF be using java.lang.Double like Lucee? Any other less-edge-casey issues that would arise from CF choosing Long over Double?
Credit also to Sean Corfield.Attachments:
Comments: