Feat: Implements ord and partialord to timestamp

[LevBeta]

Related to #993

[caspermeijn]

Maybe you could add a parameterized test. This way you could easily test many scenarios . Here is an example:

prost/prost-types/src/lib.rs

Lines 733 to 805 in a1ab898

	fn check_duration_normalize() {
	#[rustfmt::skip] // Don't mangle the table formatting.
	let cases = [
	// --- Table of test cases ---
	// test seconds test nanos expected seconds expected nanos
	(line!(), 0, 0, 0, 0),
	(line!(), 1, 1, 1, 1),
	(line!(), -1, -1, -1, -1),
	(line!(), 0, 999_999_999, 0, 999_999_999),
	(line!(), 0, -999_999_999, 0, -999_999_999),
	(line!(), 0, 1_000_000_000, 1, 0),
	(line!(), 0, -1_000_000_000, -1, 0),
	(line!(), 0, 1_000_000_001, 1, 1),
	(line!(), 0, -1_000_000_001, -1, -1),
	(line!(), -1, 1, 0, -999_999_999),
	(line!(), 1, -1, 0, 999_999_999),
	(line!(), -1, 1_000_000_000, 0, 0),
	(line!(), 1, -1_000_000_000, 0, 0),
	(line!(), i64::MIN , 0, i64::MIN , 0),
	(line!(), i64::MIN + 1, 0, i64::MIN + 1, 0),
	(line!(), i64::MIN , 1, i64::MIN + 1, -999_999_999),
	(line!(), i64::MIN , 1_000_000_000, i64::MIN + 1, 0),
	(line!(), i64::MIN , -1_000_000_000, i64::MIN , -999_999_999),
	(line!(), i64::MIN + 1, -1_000_000_000, i64::MIN , 0),
	(line!(), i64::MIN + 2, -1_000_000_000, i64::MIN + 1, 0),
	(line!(), i64::MIN , -1_999_999_998, i64::MIN , -999_999_999),
	(line!(), i64::MIN + 1, -1_999_999_998, i64::MIN , -999_999_998),
	(line!(), i64::MIN + 2, -1_999_999_998, i64::MIN + 1, -999_999_998),
	(line!(), i64::MIN , -1_999_999_999, i64::MIN , -999_999_999),
	(line!(), i64::MIN + 1, -1_999_999_999, i64::MIN , -999_999_999),
	(line!(), i64::MIN + 2, -1_999_999_999, i64::MIN + 1, -999_999_999),
	(line!(), i64::MIN , -2_000_000_000, i64::MIN , -999_999_999),
	(line!(), i64::MIN + 1, -2_000_000_000, i64::MIN , -999_999_999),
	(line!(), i64::MIN + 2, -2_000_000_000, i64::MIN , 0),
	(line!(), i64::MIN , -999_999_998, i64::MIN , -999_999_998),
	(line!(), i64::MIN + 1, -999_999_998, i64::MIN + 1, -999_999_998),
	(line!(), i64::MAX , 0, i64::MAX , 0),
	(line!(), i64::MAX - 1, 0, i64::MAX - 1, 0),
	(line!(), i64::MAX , -1, i64::MAX - 1, 999_999_999),
	(line!(), i64::MAX , 1_000_000_000, i64::MAX , 999_999_999),
	(line!(), i64::MAX - 1, 1_000_000_000, i64::MAX , 0),
	(line!(), i64::MAX - 2, 1_000_000_000, i64::MAX - 1, 0),
	(line!(), i64::MAX , 1_999_999_998, i64::MAX , 999_999_999),
	(line!(), i64::MAX - 1, 1_999_999_998, i64::MAX , 999_999_998),
	(line!(), i64::MAX - 2, 1_999_999_998, i64::MAX - 1, 999_999_998),
	(line!(), i64::MAX , 1_999_999_999, i64::MAX , 999_999_999),
	(line!(), i64::MAX - 1, 1_999_999_999, i64::MAX , 999_999_999),
	(line!(), i64::MAX - 2, 1_999_999_999, i64::MAX - 1, 999_999_999),
	(line!(), i64::MAX , 2_000_000_000, i64::MAX , 999_999_999),
	(line!(), i64::MAX - 1, 2_000_000_000, i64::MAX , 999_999_999),
	(line!(), i64::MAX - 2, 2_000_000_000, i64::MAX , 0),
	(line!(), i64::MAX , 999_999_998, i64::MAX , 999_999_998),
	(line!(), i64::MAX - 1, 999_999_998, i64::MAX - 1, 999_999_998),
	];
	for case in cases.iter() {
	let mut test_duration = Duration {
	seconds: case.1,
	nanos: case.2,
	};
	test_duration.normalize();
	assert_eq!(
	test_duration,
	Duration {
	seconds: case.3,
	nanos: case.4,
	},
	"test case on line {} doesn't match",
	case.0,
	);
	}
	}

[caspermeijn]

This file is generated, so your changes will be overwritten. Maybe you could add this to the generator so that all types can benefit from comparisons.

I believe this is the reason the CI tests fail

[caspermeijn]

I believe you could just #[derive(PartialOrd, Ord)] on struct Timestamp. At least your unit test succeeds.

[LevBeta]

I noticed a potential issue in both the comparison logic when dealing with timestamps. For instance, when comparing:
Timestamp { seconds: 1, nanos: 0 }

to

Timestamp { seconds: 0, nanos: 1_000_000_000 }

The current/(and #[derive(Ord)]) implementation considers the first timestamp as greater than the second one. However, it's crucial to recognize that the second timestamp actually represents the same duration.

[caspermeijn]

There is a normalize function in Timestamp. I believe that does what you are looking for. https://docs.rs/prost-types/latest/prost_types/struct.Timestamp.html#method.normalize

[caspermeijn]

@LevBeta Are you still interested in this PR?

[caspermeijn]

@LevBeta I am preparing a breaking release. Are you still interested in this PR? If so, please update the code

[avsaase]

I'm interested in this change. If @LevBeta doesn't want to work on it anymore I can make a new PR.

[caspermeijn]

I'm interested in this change. If @LevBeta doesn't want to work on it anymore I can make a new PR.

Well there has been no response for 2 months. Feel free to open a new PR with a response to the feedback. As stated, I am preparing a breaking release and this would fit in with that.