-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 25.3k
Fixes ByteSizeValue to serialise correctly #27702
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
8 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
c4d615b
Fixes ByteSizeValue to serialise correctly
colings86 9d23322
Fix bytes settings default value to not use fractional values
colings86 960cfa1
Fixes test
colings86 f8792f6
Addresses review comments
colings86 677c869
Modifies parsing to preserve unit
colings86 b6501da
Addresses more review comments
colings86 f49815f
Fixes tests
colings86 6753cd3
Temporarily changes version check to 7.0.0
colings86 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 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
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
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.
@jasontedor this is the test I am unsure about. It failed when I added code to reject negative bytes values (expect the special -1 value) because this test explicitly checked that negative values for disk stats were accepted but the disk is skipped. From looking at FSProbe#L143 which is where we gather the disk statistics it seems that we can't actually get negative values here and instead any value reported by the OS as negative are interpreted by FSProbe as an overflow and are converted to
Long.MAX_VALUE
.I changed this test to use the special -1 value instead and check the disks are still skipped but maybe we actually don't need this test at all?
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 agree, the test was doing unrealistic things so I am fine with the change you made here. Let's keep whether or not the test is needed as a separate issue. There's probably other cleanup to do here, like adding asserts in FsInfo.Path about not seeing negative values.