future date testing

[Bill McEachran]

I'd prefer testing on a VM myself.
However, this establishment has 5.6 and I'm not familiar with the 
license manager or the implications of having two copies running under 
the lic.mgr.

>
> On 6/3/2010 12:40 PM, Fairlight wrote:
>> Is it just me, or did Bill McEachran say:
>>    
>>> I need to test a routine that takes effect a month in the future.
>>>
>>> Anyone know of a technique to fool a  filePro session into thinking the
>>> date is a month into the future without actually changing the system date?
>>> I have a test setup configured using $PFDIR on the production box ... so
>>> actually changing the date isn't feasible.
>>>
>>> I was hoping I could manipulate the date by setting TZ in the test users
>>> environment ... but I can only manipulate that by one day (unless
>>> there's a syntax I don't know about).
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>      
>> Set up Sun VirtualBox with a guest OS underneath, and set the date on the
>> VM guest OS to whatever you need, and test the code on the VM.  Which is
>> almost the same as saying, "Use another box for development," except it
>> being virtual, you don't need extra hardware.
>>
>> There's not really a way to do it all on the same box.  It's not like the
>> time is set in the alterable environment.  Time calls are going to resolve
>> to the C function time(2), which goes by the system clock.  That
>> methodology and the underlying mechanism is all or nothing.
>>
>> Using TZ -might- work, if you could create your own timezone file, -and- if
>> setting an offset greater than +/- 2359 is allowable.  I've never looked at
>> the timezone files enough to know.  Bill Campbell might, though--he had
>> fixes for daylight savings before most linux vendors did, when they
>> switched the DST boundaries.
>>
>> Personally, I'd say use a VM.  If you use an OS that supports guest
>> extensions, you can allocate shared folders, so you could actually mount
>> the existing data directory and test on whatever you have already,
>> in-place, if you need to, rather than just a copy.
>>
>> mark->
>>    
>>
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG -www.avg.com
>> Version: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2915 - Release Date: 06/03/10 02:25:00
>>
>>    
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.celestial.com/pipermail/filepro-list/attachments/20100603/afd7211f/attachment.html