Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Consider using 'monotime' Gem as basis of time measurement #16

Open
jdickey opened this issue Nov 30, 2018 · 1 comment
Open

Consider using 'monotime' Gem as basis of time measurement #16

jdickey opened this issue Nov 30, 2018 · 1 comment
Labels
future feature A good idea, but not for the current release. tooling Related to use of third-party tools of whatever form wontfix This will not be worked on
Milestone
The Glorious Future™

Comments

@jdickey
Copy link
Owner

jdickey commented Nov 30, 2018

Sometime in The Glorious Future™, Freaky/monotime looks like it could be quite useful, not to mention interesting. In particular, its Instant class lets you establish a point in time and then take successive readings of the time difference between "now" and when that Instant was instantiated. Before we understood the difference between the Time class as defined in Ruby core and the Time class as defined in the Standard Library, we were considering using Instant for the password_reset_sent_atattribute required byCryptIdent. That would make checking for expiration even more trivially easy than straight Time` arithmetic.
@jdickey jdickey added tooling Related to use of third-party tools of whatever form future feature A good idea, but not for the current release. labels Nov 30, 2018
jdickey added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 30, 2018
@jdickey
Add notes for 'monotime' Gem, which may well prove useful in future.
352e0ea 
/~https://github.com/Freaky/monotime looks quite useful for measurements and running timings, when we get around to doing profiling. This commit adds `XXX:` notes to both the Gemspec and the Gem-installation-list builder as reminders to think about this later.

[Pinging #16]

44 tests, 63 assertions, 0 failures, 0 errors, 0 skips
Coverage: 466 / 466 LOC (100.0%) covered.
RuboCop: 7 files inspected, no offenses detected
Flay: Total score 0
Flog: Total 161.3; method average 4.7; max 9.8 (CryptIdent::SignUp#create_result)
Reek: 0 total warnings
Inch: Nothing to suggest
@jdickey jdickey added the wontfix This will not be worked on label Dec 18, 2018
@jdickey
Copy link
Owner Author

jdickey commented Dec 18, 2018

This won't be a part of the 0.1.0 release or, in all probability, be introduced until well after 1.0.0. Zero available bandwidth and nice-to-have-but-not-essential are an unpleasant combination.

@jdickey jdickey added this to the The Glorious Future™ milestone Dec 18, 2018
jdickey added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 18, 2018
@jdickey
Prepare for 0.1.0 Gem release; add HISTORY.md
ddffc96 
* One issue known to need resolution prior to 1.0.0 release (#20);
* One has been  moved to _The Glorious Future™_ milestone (#16); and
* One has simply been labelled `wontfix` with no milestone specified (#14).

81 tests, 110 assertions, 0 failures, 0 errors, 0 skips
Coverage: 918 / 918 LOC (100.0%) covered.
RuboCop: 11 files inspected, no offenses detected
Flay: Total score 0
Flog: Total 329.8; method average 4.6; max 9.8 (CryptIdent::SignUp#create_result)
Reek: 0 total warnings
Inch: Nothing to suggest
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
future feature A good idea, but not for the current release. tooling Related to use of third-party tools of whatever form wontfix This will not be worked on
Projects
None yet
Milestone
The Glorious Future™
Development

No branches or pull requests
1 participant
@jdickey