fix(sdk): Fix the bug in ResourceLocator serialization logic

[sujankota]

Proposed Changes

The setURLWithIdentifier function has been updated to correctly pad the rl.identifier field with null bytes (\x00) to the required length (2, 8, or 32 bytes) before it is written. This ensures that the serialized identifier always matches the length indicated by its protocol flag, allowing readResourceLocator to parse it correctly during decryption.

This change aligns the HTTPS identifier handling with the existing HTTP identifier padding logic, ensuring consistency and correctness across protocols.

Checklist

• I have added or updated unit tests
• I have added or updated integration tests (if appropriate)
• I have added or updated documentation

Testing Instructions

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @sujankota, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request addresses a critical bug in the ResourceLocator serialization within the SDK. The fix involves refining the identifier handling logic by introducing null-byte padding to ensure that identifiers always conform to their specified byte lengths (2, 8, or 32 bytes). This change prevents potential issues with inconsistent identifier lengths during serialization and deserialization, thereby improving the robustness and reliability of resource location.

Highlights

• Identifier Padding Logic: Introduced null-byte padding for identifiers in ResourceLocator to ensure they always reach their expected byte length (2, 8, or 32 bytes) during serialization.
• Corrected Identifier Length Checks: Adjusted the conditional checks for identifier lengths to use constants (identifier2ByteLength, identifier8ByteLength, identifier32ByteLength) and ensure correct range handling (e.g., > identifier2ByteLength instead of >= 3).
• Bug Fix in Serialization: Resolved a bug in the ResourceLocator serialization logic where identifiers were not consistently padded, potentially leading to incorrect deserialization or data interpretation.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

---

Short string, needs more space, Null bytes fill the empty gap, Data now aligns.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request correctly fixes a bug in the ResourceLocator serialization logic by adding the necessary padding to identifiers. However, the implementation introduces significant code duplication between the handling of HTTP and HTTPS protocols. I've added comments with suggestions to refactor this to improve maintainability and avoid future inconsistencies. Additionally, it appears that unit tests covering this specific padding logic are missing. I strongly recommend adding tests to verify that identifiers are correctly padded to prevent regressions.

[github-actions]

Benchmark results, click to expand

Benchmark authorization.GetDecisions Results:

Metric	Value
Approved Decision Requests	1000
Denied Decision Requests	0
Total Time	156.491115ms

Benchmark authorization.v2.GetMultiResourceDecision Results:

Metric	Value
Approved Decision Requests	1000
Denied Decision Requests	0
Total Time	102.780316ms

Standard Benchmark Metrics Skipped or Failed

Bulk Benchmark Results

Metric	Value
Total Decrypts	100
Successful Decrypts	100
Failed Decrypts	0
Total Time	357.46188ms
Throughput	279.75 requests/second

TDF3 Benchmark Results:

Metric	Value
Total Requests	5000
Successful Requests	5000
Failed Requests	0
Concurrent Requests	50
Total Time	38.972284128s
Average Latency	387.161084ms
Throughput	128.30 requests/second

NANOTDF Benchmark Results:

Metric	Value
Total Requests	5000
Successful Requests	5000
Failed Requests	0
Concurrent Requests	50
Total Time	27.362537048s
Average Latency	272.922148ms
Throughput	182.73 requests/second

[github-actions]

Benchmark results, click to expand

Benchmark authorization.GetDecisions Results:

Metric	Value
Approved Decision Requests	1000
Denied Decision Requests	0
Total Time	167.832505ms

Benchmark authorization.v2.GetMultiResourceDecision Results:

Metric	Value
Approved Decision Requests	1000
Denied Decision Requests	0
Total Time	101.516726ms

Standard Benchmark Metrics Skipped or Failed

Bulk Benchmark Results

Metric	Value
Total Decrypts	100
Successful Decrypts	100
Failed Decrypts	0
Total Time	358.637325ms
Throughput	278.83 requests/second

TDF3 Benchmark Results:

Metric	Value
Total Requests	5000
Successful Requests	5000
Failed Requests	0
Concurrent Requests	50
Total Time	38.283140579s
Average Latency	381.429681ms
Throughput	130.61 requests/second

NANOTDF Benchmark Results:

Metric	Value
Total Requests	5000
Successful Requests	5000
Failed Requests	0
Concurrent Requests	50
Total Time	27.036118067s
Average Latency	269.307623ms
Throughput	184.94 requests/second

[github-actions]

Benchmark results, click to expand

Benchmark authorization.GetDecisions Results:

Metric	Value
Approved Decision Requests	1000
Denied Decision Requests	0
Total Time	154.208548ms

Benchmark authorization.v2.GetMultiResourceDecision Results:

Metric	Value
Approved Decision Requests	1000
Denied Decision Requests	0
Total Time	89.61928ms

Standard Benchmark Metrics Skipped or Failed

Bulk Benchmark Results

Metric	Value
Total Decrypts	100
Successful Decrypts	100
Failed Decrypts	0
Total Time	375.371095ms
Throughput	266.40 requests/second

TDF3 Benchmark Results:

Metric	Value
Total Requests	5000
Successful Requests	5000
Failed Requests	0
Concurrent Requests	50
Total Time	40.646336098s
Average Latency	404.891396ms
Throughput	123.01 requests/second

NANOTDF Benchmark Results:

Metric	Value
Total Requests	5000
Successful Requests	5000
Failed Requests	0
Concurrent Requests	50
Total Time	28.434359814s
Average Latency	283.205289ms
Throughput	175.84 requests/second

[github-actions]

Benchmark results, click to expand

Benchmark authorization.GetDecisions Results:

Metric	Value
Approved Decision Requests	1000
Denied Decision Requests	0
Total Time	179.336644ms

Benchmark authorization.v2.GetMultiResourceDecision Results:

Metric	Value
Approved Decision Requests	1000
Denied Decision Requests	0
Total Time	116.00985ms

Standard Benchmark Metrics Skipped or Failed

Bulk Benchmark Results

Metric	Value
Total Decrypts	100
Successful Decrypts	100
Failed Decrypts	0
Total Time	380.317819ms
Throughput	262.94 requests/second

TDF3 Benchmark Results:

Metric	Value
Total Requests	5000
Successful Requests	5000
Failed Requests	0
Concurrent Requests	50
Total Time	41.385890559s
Average Latency	412.311737ms
Throughput	120.81 requests/second

NANOTDF Benchmark Results:

Metric	Value
Total Requests	5000
Successful Requests	5000
Failed Requests	0
Concurrent Requests	50
Total Time	28.52583095s
Average Latency	284.306599ms
Throughput	175.28 requests/second