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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Trivial Serialization Tweaks #1956
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Trivial Serialization Tweaks #1956
Changes from all commits
7fd9b33
a03db3c
b75a558
3e9727b
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's unlikely, but I don't really see how this is backwards compatible if we write more than 65k entries, seems like we could still fail to deserialize on previous versions. Maybe there's no specific map this is possible for, though.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
To be clear, if a previous version happened to write
0xffff
exactly, we could fail to deserialize now?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Oh, wait, can we forgo the addition here and the subtraction in the write by simply ignoring the
u16
on read (whenval == 0xffff
) and writing the fullu64
after0xffff
in the write (whenval >= 0xffff
)?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We can, yes, but then we have multiple ways to represent the same integers, which is both awkward, and makes the fuzzers angry, which would be a bit of work to fix and would reduce coverage on the gossip messages we need to round-trip exactly. I don't think the performance penalty here matters, we should really almost never be hitting the 8-byte cases.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No test coverage here, I assume it's covered in follow-up
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yea, I can drop it if you prefer but it is used in #1897