Hi!
Thank you for your work, I tried to play with it and figured out that there is an issue with the long string.
Basically, it doesn't read fully long string and after that, all strings are messed...
Not to throw shade, just wishing that somebody here can understand. Whenever an input is reasonably long, an analyzing function will crash, and this PR aims to fix that with a mechanism that contradicts the maintainer's understanding while a similar C implementation does not need this fix. Clearly, the maintainer has not heard a certain programming mantra...
No you aren't.
The title is demeaning.
"don't want to throw shade" as if we all know what's going on except the people involved in the link.
"Clearly the maintainer hasn't heard of a certain..." Haha, we are in the same group, right? We know what's up, guys... Right? Haha, look at these losers.
Never mind that you are applying a time pressure on open source maintainers to try and merge a change they don't understand. Not very respectful. And quite frankly, in extremely bad taste considering the recently revealed xz social engineering.
Where is the question?
There isn't a single question mark in your post. You frame it as if their problem and they don't understand.
Even here, where you are so close to asking, you make it sound like you are checking that everyone here understands.
Incidentally, this kind of passive-aggressive pressure is the kind of thing that might be considered a legitimate security threat, post xz. If you need to vent, vent in private. If "it works for you" but the maintainer is asking legitimate questions about the implementation, consider engaging with that in good faith and evaluating their questions with an open mind.
What mantra? I think this maintainer is doing the right thing here by trying to understand why this fix works.
You should always attempt to address the root cause of an issue instead of slapping band aid patches onto everything.
To me it looks like the maintainer is trying to find out what exactly is wrong. "this doesn't happen in our C implementation" implies that there's something wrong with the rust code specifically.
A "mantra" more programmers should have is to fix the cause of the issue, and not just the symptoms. You have to understand what the problem is to be able to fix it.
They tested the same strings on that implementation
The strings were the same, but not the implementation. They were testing the decoding of the strings, but the C function they were looking at was the one for encoding them. The decoding function was correct but what it read didn't match the encoding one.
though judging by the recent comments someone’s found something.