Disable an incorrect optimization in int64ToString #366
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
|
Closing this in favor of #367. Looking at https://github.com/protocolbuffers/protobuf, this seems to have been broken for a while. |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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've run into a bug where a timestamp seems to be experiencing some bit-flipping
I added a test case here that demonstrates the problem. If BigInt is not available (which is the case when running in react-native), the test will fail, printing out:
- Expected '1657029432704' to be '1661324400000'.A colleague printed out the bits for a different timestamp that shows where the flipping is happening:
I don't fully understand the int64toString function, so I chose to just disable the optimization, which does fix this problem. I saw it was copied from an experimental directory of the google protobuf implementation, so I'm guessing they just didn't fully test and verify this yet, so disabling the optimization was probably the better short term play?