-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 657
perf(encoding): improve base32 encode/decode performance #6479
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file was deleted.
Oops, something went wrong.
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
Oops, something went wrong.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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.
The result of this input seems changed by this PR. Is that intentional?
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.
Yes. The way the new code detects errors is different where the old input would be valid. The old input had the wrong length based off the encoding + padding but the new code doesn't care about the padding as long as it isn't too much padding. Four encoded characters is valid here while three is invalid
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.
I'm not sure if we should do that change. I checked the standard libraries of some other languages, but they seem checking padding length. Probably we should keep that check?
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 was more written this way for convince. The code for it is here: https://github.com/denoland/std/blob/main/encoding/_common32.ts#L107-L119 where it really is just seeing how much padding it needs to slice off before doing the actual decoding.
I can understand wanting to be in align with other std's but I also don't see a benefit in being strict here with the padding when decoding when you know what the missing bytes are.
The change to base64 operates in the same manner here. Where base64url may allow omitting padding, but base64 requires it, the decoder doesn't care if padding is short
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.
I think this kind of change needs more broader consensus from the community and core team, and I'm not in favor of landing this as part of
perf
change. Can you add back the simple check of length like the below and create an issue for discussing that?:Base64 decoder seems ignoring missing padding before the recent rewrite (#6461). That might be a good reason to remove padding length check from
decodeBase32
. Anyway I think we need to discuss this topic independently somewhere else.