GeezerVisonThe World Wide Web, restored to 800 pixels of glory. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Home|About|Gaming cabinet|Archives|How it works|Starter sites | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GeezerVison is showing github.com — feat(coderd/schedule/cron): add Standard schedule constructor by ThomasK33 · Pull Request #32063 · coder/coder Conversation
|
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
@codex review |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
@codex security review |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Codex Review Summary: ✅ CompletedThis comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
🛡️ Codex Security ReviewSecurity review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request. Reviewed commit: Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex. ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHubThis is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:
Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: c265185114
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
… MinInterval Next searches again when robfig/cron gives up after five years, so a leap day schedule keeps running across 2100. The zone period walk starts 26 hours before the reading, so historic offsets above 14 hours still find the first instance of a repeated time. MinInterval scans 28 years, which holds every calendar a year can have, so schedules that set both day fields get their true shortest gap. It stops once it sees two days in a row, and searches from midnight, so common schedules take microseconds.
Go reports wrong zone period bounds after the last transition in a zone's data, so the walk over zone periods never ended on December 31 of a leap year. A reading is now resolved from the offsets of the zone around it, with fixed bounds on every loop, and Next returns the zero time instead of spinning when a step does not move forward. MinInterval drops the calendar scan and returns the shortest distance between two times of day around the clock. Standard rejects the zone data files localtime, posixrules and Factory.
…a through 2100 The differential test runs over every clock change of five zones and December 31 in years up to 2100, with the zone data of the host and the data that Go embeds. Every Next call in the termination test has a deadline. The model of cron comes from robfig/cron, not from the code under test.
…limits No two runs are closer than MinInterval while the UTC offset of the zone does not change. An offset change can shorten a gap that spans it, and a pair across midnight counts without days in a row. Tests pin both.
|
@codex review |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
@codex security review |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
🛡️ Codex Security ReviewSecurity review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request. Reviewed commit: Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex. ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHubThis is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:
Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. 🚀 Reviewed commit: ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍. Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback". |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
A zone name with an empty, dot or dot-dot segment is rejected, because time.LoadLocation cleans the path and ./localtime reached the host file. Tests start Next inside repeated periods of up to a whole day, so the bound on the readings that Next walks is pinned, and a test from a zone with a local mean time offset above 15 hours pins the range of offsets that Next reads. The comment on the search for later runs now states 16 years, which is what robfig's year limit gives.
|
@codex review |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
@codex security review |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
🛡️ Codex Security ReviewSecurity review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request. Reviewed commit: Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex. ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHubThis is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:
Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. What shall we delve into next? Reviewed commit: ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍. Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback". |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
…the zone once A zone name is rejected when its first segment is posix or right, because right counts leap seconds and gives wrong runs on hosts that have it. The files that are not zones are rejected in any directory. The error for an unknown zone holds the name once. A test starts Next in Juneau, where the walk visits 1,441 readings, one more than the repeated day of Sitka.
|
@codex review |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
@codex security review |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
🛡️ Codex Security ReviewSecurity review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request. Reviewed commit: Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex. ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHubThis is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:
Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. 🚀 Reviewed commit: ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍. Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback". |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The RFC says the browser previews unsaved schedules with cron-parser (4.9.0 in site/package.json), and the server stays authoritative. cron-parser accepts these specs, but Standard rejects them:
0 9 * * 7 (7 as Sunday)0 9 L * * (last day of the month)0 9 * * 1#2 (second Monday)0 0 9 * * * (six fields: cron-parser reads the first field as seconds and previews daily at 09:00)For each of these, the user sees a valid preview, and then the save fails.
On clock-change days, the previewed times also differ from the times the server runs. In America/New_York:
30 2 * * * on 2026-03-08: the preview shows 03:30 EDT, but the server runs at 03:00 EDT.*/15 * * * * on 2026-11-01: the preview shows runs at 01:00 EST, 01:15 EST and so on, but the server runs nothing between 01:45 EDT and 02:00 EST.This is not a bug in this PR, but this PR sets the syntax and the daylight saving rules that the server uses. Is there a plan to keep the browser preview and the server in agreement?
🤖
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
Thanks, this is a real gap, and the RFC does not close it. It says "The browser previews the next runs of an unsaved schedule with the The plan:
I did not change the server's syntax here. Generated with |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
ca0cbb26
Deployed
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.