Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

test: Add more test cases for Base58 parser #5174

Merged
merged 11 commits into from
Dec 3, 2024
+12 −3
Merged

test: Add more test cases for Base58 parser #5174

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 2 commits
Commits
Show all changes
11 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
9c1b088
test: Add more test cases for Base58 and NFTs
ximinez Oct 31, 2024
046f49c
Oops. Remove duplicated function.
ximinez Oct 31, 2024
2472ba1
[FOLD] Review feedback from @vlntb
ximinez Nov 4, 2024
6408a35
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/develop' into pr/base58-tests
ximinez Nov 4, 2024
d188efb
[FOLD] Move [[maybe_unused]] to make linux clang compiler happy
ximinez Nov 4, 2024
cef381f
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/develop' into pr/base58-tests
ximinez Nov 5, 2024
e3983dc
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/develop' into pr/base58-tests
ximinez Nov 8, 2024
f5d9361
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/develop' into pr/base58-tests
ximinez Nov 13, 2024
a7d0dd3
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/develop' into pr/base58-tests
ximinez Nov 13, 2024
794f796
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/develop' into pr/base58-tests
ximinez Nov 27, 2024
6a2dce2
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/develop' into pr/base58-tests
ximinez Dec 3, 2024
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
3 changes: 2 additions & 1 deletion include/xrpl/protocol/detail/b58_utils.h
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -169,8 +169,9 @@ inplace_bigint_div_rem(std::span<uint64_t> numerator, std::uint64_t divisor)
[[nodiscard]] inline std::array<std::uint8_t, 10>
b58_10_to_b58_be(std::uint64_t input)
{
constexpr std::uint64_t B_58_10 = 430804206899405824; // 58^10;
static constexpr std::uint64_t B_58_10 = 430804206899405824; // 58^10;
assert(input < B_58_10);
(void)B_58_10;
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What does this line do?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It fools the compiler into thinking the variable is used, so you don't get unused variable warnings when asserts are disabled.

In file included from /home/extra/ed/dev/rippled/current/src/ripple/protocol/impl/tokens.cpp:32:
/home/extra/ed/dev/rippled/current/src/ripple/protocol/impl/b58_utils.h: In function ‘std::array<unsigned char, 10> ripple::b58_fast::detail::b58_10_to_b58_be(uint64_t)’:
/home/extra/ed/dev/rippled/current/src/ripple/protocol/impl/b58_utils.h:172:29: warning: unused variable ‘B_58_10’ [-Wunused-variable]
  172 |     constexpr std::uint64_t B_58_10 = 430804206899405824;  // 58^10;
      |                             ^~~~~~~

It's just an annoyance, but it was on the branch I had sitting around, so I included it.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In this case it would be better to use maybe_unused attribute:

static constexpr [[maybe_unused]] std::uint64_t B_58_10 = 430804206899405824; // 58^10

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, I keep forgetting that exists. LOL

constexpr std::size_t resultSize = 10;
std::array<std::uint8_t, resultSize> result{};
int i = 0;
Expand Down
5 changes: 5 additions & 0 deletions src/test/protocol/types_test.cpp
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -30,6 +30,11 @@ struct types_test : public beast::unit_test::suite
auto const s = "rHb9CJAWyB4rj91VRWn96DkukG4bwdtyTh";
if (BEAST_EXPECT(parseBase58<AccountID>(s)))
BEAST_EXPECT(toBase58(*parseBase58<AccountID>(s)) == s);
{
Copy link
Collaborator

@vlntb vlntb Nov 4, 2024 •
edited by thejohnfreeman
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

[nit] For me the intention is not very clear - is this a deliberate scope introduction or a mistake in using if statement. To make it clearer I would mark the borders of the scope of if explicitly to make clearly separate for the new scope.

if (BEAST_EXPECT(parseBase58<AccountID>(s)))
{
    BEAST_EXPECT(toBase58(*parseBase58<AccountID>(s)) == s);
}

{
    auto const s =
        "âabcd1rNxp4h8apvRis6mJf9Sh8C6iRxfrDWNâabcdAVâ\xc2\x80\xc2\x8f";
    BEAST_EXPECT(!parseBase58<AccountID>(s));
}

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, now that you mention it, it does look a little off. I changed the test a little bit to make that all clearer, and to remove the need to parse s twice.

auto const s =
"âabcd1rNxp4h8apvRis6mJf9Sh8C6iRxfrDWNâabcdAVâ\xc2\x80\xc2\x8f";
BEAST_EXPECT(!parseBase58<AccountID>(s));
}
}

void
Expand Down
Loading