Added alphabet check before decoding #7

Abierta
Ghost desea fusionar 3 commits de (eliminado):master en master
Contribuyente por primera vez

Resolves #6

Linear time complexity solution, guaranteed to work.

Alternatively you could check the expected length of the output matches but then you will have to deal with edge cases (such as the test case given).

Resolves #6 Linear time complexity solution, guaranteed to work. Alternatively you could check the expected length of the output matches but then you will have to deal with edge cases (such as the test case given).
Ghost añadido 1 commit 2021-03-04 05:12:50 +00:00
Propietario

I'm open to updating this, but it's so old an relied on so heavily by so many projects and devices (including the AppleTV SDK) that I think I'll have to do a major version bump even for a bugfix.

You could actually make this quite a bit faster by checking character ranges.

// off the cuff, not correct code
if (!(x >= "a".toCharCode() && x <= "Z".toCharCode() /* && range of symbols*/)) {
   throw Error('barf');
}

Also, I want to stick with Vanilla JavaScript (ES5) so that, for those who update, they don't have to introduce a compiler or change their other build tools.

I'm open to updating this, but it's so old an relied on so heavily by so many projects and devices (including the AppleTV SDK) that I think I'll have to do a major version bump even for a bugfix. You could actually make this quite a bit faster by checking character ranges. ```js // off the cuff, not correct code if (!(x >= "a".toCharCode() && x <= "Z".toCharCode() /* && range of symbols*/)) { throw Error('barf'); } ``` Also, I want to stick with Vanilla JavaScript (ES5) so that, for those who update, they don't have to introduce a compiler or change their other build tools.
Ghost añadido 1 commit 2021-03-11 13:26:24 +00:00
Ghost añadido 1 commit 2021-03-11 13:27:27 +00:00
Autoría
Contribuyente por primera vez

I changed it to a range check (good advice).

I think I've changed it to ES5, but I'm not super familiar with what is ES5 and what came after so I could have missed things.

We use a package called localflare to run Cloudflare Workers for testing which depends on this package. I discovered the different behavior between atob and buffer when looking at b64url in our code.

For us making the change is beneficial because the closer we can get our environment to Cloudflare the better (and I'm really against Node's behavior on this) but I also understand being cautious about versioning. I'll just have to make a PR to localflare to update their version :)

(Wrangler is on our roadmap but it will be a little while before we get there)

I changed it to a range check (good advice). I think I've changed it to ES5, but I'm not super familiar with what is ES5 and what came after so I could have missed things. We use a package called localflare to run Cloudflare Workers for testing which depends on this package. I discovered the different behavior between `atob` and `buffer` when looking at b64url in our code. For us making the change is beneficial because the closer we can get our environment to Cloudflare the better (and I'm really against Node's behavior on this) but I also understand being cautious about versioning. I'll just have to make a PR to localflare to update their version :) (Wrangler is on our roadmap but it will be a little while before we get there)
Propietario

Thanks.
I've scheduled review, update, merge, and publish this on Saturday.

Thanks. I've scheduled review, update, merge, and publish this on Saturday.
Este pull request está rota debido a que falta información del fork.
Inicie sesión para unirse a esta conversación.
No hay revisores
Sin etiquetas
Sin Milestone
No asignados
2 participantes
Notificaciones
Fecha de vencimiento
La fecha de vencimiento es inválida o está fuera de rango. Por favor utilice el formato 'aaaa-mm-dd'.

Sin fecha de vencimiento.

Dependencias

No se han establecido dependencias.

Referencia: coolaj86/atob.js#7
No se ha proporcionado una descripción.