Fix indeterministic hashing for BytesT #419
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
I'm looking into different list look up use cases and found an issue with bytes. I looked into it a bit and found that what is happening is that the
BytesTis calling thesuper.hasCode()which is unintentionally calling ahashCode()directly on an array which led to an indeterministic hashed value (it's preferred to useArrays.hashCode(b)instead).The change here is to change the initial value from calling
super.hashCode()to just using the value 0. The alternative is to use the valueArrays.hashCode(b)if preferred.