Fix BigDecimal#to_big_i regression#8790
Conversation
|
Since it's a pretty major regression it would be gr8 having this merged into |
| bd2.to_u.should eq 0 | ||
| bd3.to_u.should eq 123 | ||
| bd4.to_u.should eq 123 | ||
| bd5.to_u.should eq 123 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@bcardiff btw, why do Big*#to_u methods for values < 0 are returning them as absolute instead of raising?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That seems unexpected...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think is the effect of time, when Int#to_u used to be more like a cast, and BigDecimal#to_big_u simple uses an .abs as an approximation. Nobody submit any opinions regarding that in the original PR #4876 .
It should raise OverflowError for negative inputs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Was thinking the same, although I'd leave it for another PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For further consideration: All these specs don't really test what you would expect. Equality between different number types already works without explicit conversation. So these specs should also validate the return type.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@straight-shoota Could we leave it for another PR? I don't think we should do much more here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
btw, BigInt#to_u / BigFloat#to_u has the same issue:
require "big"
-123.to_big_i.to_u # => 123
-123.123.to_big_f.to_u # => 123
straight-shoota
left a comment
straight-shoota
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The fix only works when all decimal places are zero.
This is still incorrect:
"-1.1".to_big_d.to_big_i # => -10
Sija
force-pushed
the
fix-8789
branch
2 times, most recently
from
f5d0812 to
c96498f
Compare
|
@straight-shoota Force-pushed amended commit with the fix. |
|
Is it possible to (also) have a spec for |
Done. |
|
Is this GTG? |
|
Merge time? :) |
|
Yo! Anything else to do here? 🕦 Your PR-review process guys is a real mystery to me. You let tested, approved and tagged PRs lay idly with no explanation about the next steps or anything else that's suppose to come next... Could you be please more transparent in your actions, so it's less of a guessing-game and more of a understandable process - at least to the outsiders, who do not share your private communication channels or whatever you use to discuss things like that - if you do... |
|
Sadly, there's really no process in place. |
|
Thanks @Sija and sorry for the delay! |
4 participants
Fixes #8789