Changed header encoding from toHexString() to toString() #28
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
|
Good catch. Change #26 is new and was apparently not sufficiently tested yet. Thanks for fixing this so quickly! |
kristofa
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 21, 2014
Changed header encoding from toHexString() to toString()
|
Ouch, my bad. Thanks for the fix :) |
|
No worries! 😃 |
Closed
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
We started noticing some NumberFormatExceptions showing up in our local development after pulling the changes from #26. Digging into it, it looks like we have some weirdness in Java to thank for that. Looking at the definition of Long.toHexString(), it makes an assumption that the long value provided is nonnegative, which isn't something we can guarantee. When a negative number is provided, the resulting encoded hex is generates too large of a number when parsed by Long.parseLong(). Instead, it seems like we should use an overload of Long.toString(), specifying the radix of 16. I've updated a test to cover this corner case.