After checking with the community via Twitter (here:
https://twitter.com/antirez/status/915130876861788161) the verdict was to
use ":". However I later realized, after users lamented the fact that
it's hard to copy IDs just with double click, that this was the reason
why I moved to "." in the first instance. Fortunately "-", that was the
other option with most votes, also gets selected with double click on
most terminal applications on Linux and MacOS.
So my reasoning was:
1) We can't retain "." because it's actually confusing to newcomers, it
looks like a floating number, people may be tricked into thinking they
can order IDs numerically as floats.
2) Moving to a double-click-to-select format is much better. People will
work with such IDs for long time when coding / debugging. Why making now
a choice that will impact this for the next years?
The only other viable option was "-", and that's what I did. Thanks.
After checking with the community via Twitter (here:
https://twitter.com/antirez/status/915130876861788161) the verdict was to
use ":". However I later realized, after users lamented the fact that
it's hard to copy IDs just with double click, that this was the reason
why I moved to "." in the first instance. Fortunately "-", that was the
other option with most votes, also gets selected with double click on
most terminal applications on Linux and MacOS.
So my reasoning was:
1) We can't retain "." because it's actually confusing to newcomers, it
looks like a floating number, people may be tricked into thinking they
can order IDs numerically as floats.
2) Moving to a double-click-to-select format is much better. People will
work with such IDs for long time when coding / debugging. Why making now
a choice that will impact this for the next years?
The only other viable option was "-", and that's what I did. Thanks.
getLongLongFromObject calls string2ll which has this line:
/* Return if not all bytes were used. */
so if you pass an sds with 3 characters "1\01" it will fail.
but getLongDoubleFromObject calls strtold, and considers it ok if eptr[0]==`\0`
i.e. if the end of the string found by strtold ends with null terminator
127.0.0.1:6379> set a 1
OK
127.0.0.1:6379> setrange a 2 2
(integer) 3
127.0.0.1:6379> get a
"1\x002"
127.0.0.1:6379> incrbyfloat a 2
"3"
127.0.0.1:6379> get a
"3"
getLongLongFromObject calls string2ll which has this line:
/* Return if not all bytes were used. */
so if you pass an sds with 3 characters "1\01" it will fail.
but getLongDoubleFromObject calls strtold, and considers it ok if eptr[0]==`\0`
i.e. if the end of the string found by strtold ends with null terminator
127.0.0.1:6379> set a 1
OK
127.0.0.1:6379> setrange a 2 2
(integer) 3
127.0.0.1:6379> get a
"1\x002"
127.0.0.1:6379> incrbyfloat a 2
"3"
127.0.0.1:6379> get a
"3"
This commit closes issue #3698, at least for now, since the root cause
was not fixed: the bounding box function, for huge radiuses, does not
return a correct bounding box, there are points still within the radius
that are left outside.
So when using GEORADIUS queries with radiuses in the order of 5000 km or
more, it was possible to see, at the edge of the area, certain points
not correctly reported.
Because the bounding box for now was used just as an optimization, and
such huge radiuses are not common, for now the optimization is just
switched off when the radius is near such magnitude.
Three test cases found by the Continuous Integration test were added, so
that we can easily trigger the bug again, both for regression testing
and in order to properly fix it as some point in the future.
This commit closes issue #3698, at least for now, since the root cause
was not fixed: the bounding box function, for huge radiuses, does not
return a correct bounding box, there are points still within the radius
that are left outside.
So when using GEORADIUS queries with radiuses in the order of 5000 km or
more, it was possible to see, at the edge of the area, certain points
not correctly reported.
Because the bounding box for now was used just as an optimization, and
such huge radiuses are not common, for now the optimization is just
switched off when the radius is near such magnitude.
Three test cases found by the Continuous Integration test were added, so
that we can easily trigger the bug again, both for regression testing
and in order to properly fix it as some point in the future.
Experimentally verified that it can trigger the issue reverting the fix.
At least on my system... Being the bug time/backlog dependant, it is
very hard to tell if this test will be able to trigger the problem
consistently, however even if it triggers the problem once in a while,
we'll see it in the CI environment at http://ci.redis.io.
Experimentally verified that it can trigger the issue reverting the fix.
At least on my system... Being the bug time/backlog dependant, it is
very hard to tell if this test will be able to trigger the problem
consistently, however even if it triggers the problem once in a while,
we'll see it in the CI environment at http://ci.redis.io.
Apparently 1.4 is too low compared to what you get in certain setups
(including mine). I raised it to 1.55 that hopefully is still enough to
test that the fragmentation went down from 1.7 but without incurring in
issues, however the test setup may be still fragile so certain times this
may lead to false positives again, it's hard to test for these things
in a determinsitic way.
Related to #3786.
Apparently 1.4 is too low compared to what you get in certain setups
(including mine). I raised it to 1.55 that hopefully is still enough to
test that the fragmentation went down from 1.7 but without incurring in
issues, however the test setup may be still fragile so certain times this
may lead to false positives again, it's hard to test for these things
in a determinsitic way.
Related to #3786.
