You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I'm experiencing different next execution time behaviour depending if the first field is seconds or minutes.
I think that without any explicit kind of configuration, the seconds field should not behave differently than the minutes field. It's an unexpected inconsistency.
I expect the following, but the result is different if the seconds field matches and the next second would also match the seconds field! In that case, the nanos field is not set to zero.
By the way, to possibly counter the "strange" expression 3/1 used above, the behaviour can also be seen when using a plain * for the leftmost cron field.
If it's "seconds", then the nano part of the nextExecution time is not set to zero, if it's "minutes", then the nano (and the second) part of the nextExecution time is indeed set to zero.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
dllx
linked a pull request
Feb 8, 2024
that will
close
this issue
I'm experiencing different next execution time behaviour depending if the first field is seconds or minutes.
I think that without any explicit kind of configuration, the seconds field should not behave differently than the minutes field. It's an unexpected inconsistency.
Given
I expect the following, and indeed that's what I observe:
On the other hand, if I add a
seconds
field into the definition likeI expect the following, but the result is different if the seconds field matches and the next second would also match the seconds field! In that case, the nanos field is not set to zero.
By the way, to possibly counter the "strange" expression
3/1
used above, the behaviour can also be seen when using a plain*
for the leftmost cron field.If it's "seconds", then the
nano
part of thenextExecution
time is not set to zero, if it's "minutes", then thenano
(and thesecond
) part of thenextExecution
time is indeed set to zero.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: