bugfix: Timestamp deserialize lost nano #2309
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
Signed-off-by: slievrly <slievrly@163.com>
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #2309 +/- ##
=============================================
+ Coverage 51.41% 51.47% +0.06%
- Complexity 2664 2666 +2
=============================================
Files 511 511
Lines 16627 16638 +11
Branches 2033 2033
=============================================
+ Hits 8548 8564 +16
+ Misses 7269 7266 -3
+ Partials 810 808 -2
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Signed-off-by: slievrly slievrly@163.com
Ⅰ. Describe what this PR did
bugfix: Timestamp deserialize lost nano
fix use kyro and protostuff deserialize lost nano
add UT for timestamp
Ⅱ. Does this pull request fix one issue?
fix #2303
Ⅲ. Why don't you add test cases (unit test/integration test)?
Ⅳ. Describe how to verify it
Ⅴ. Special notes for reviews