Reimplement elapsedTime to be precise #299
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters. Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
The new implementation is consistent with `applyDuration` so that: if with `elapsedTime`: diff = d2 - d1 then with `applyDuration`: d1 + diff == d2
leduyquang753 force-pushed the elapsedTime branch from 995783a to b177067 Compare 
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
2 participants
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 Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
(This is part of a set of multiple pull requests looking to overhaul the calculation functions.)
The current implementation of
elapsedTimejust assumes there are 30 days in a month, which causes overshoots whenroundToSingleUnittakes its result and, in a rather roundabout way, tries to compute the original date back.This pull request reimplements the function so that it is consistent with
applyDuration: applying the duration to the reference date always gives the original input date.In math form:
In code: