bridge: Be more explicit about bridging u64 timestamps #404
Conversation
This file contains 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
u64 can't be represented as a primitive in Java or TypeScript (and for the latter, Neon doesn't support bigint yet). However, for timestamps represented as milliseconds, the integer-safe range of float64 still covers more than 285,000 years, so it's reasonably safe to use TypeScript's 'number' or Java's 'long' to represent these ostensibly-64-bit values. Indicate this with a new Timestamp wrapper type in the bridge layer. In theory we could push this new Timestamp type down to the libsignal-protocol crate. However, the protocol itself doesn't impose any restrictions on the timestamp fields, so I figured it was best to put it at the bridge layer, to indicate that it's about how Signal specifically uses these fields. This commit paves the way for being stricter about *other* u64 values that might want to use the full 64-bit space.
jim-signal
approved these changes
Oct 30, 2021
peter-signal
approved these changes
Nov 1, 2021
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
u64 can't be represented as a primitive in Java or TypeScript (and for the latter, Neon doesn't support bigint yet). However, for timestamps represented as milliseconds, the integer-safe range of float64 still covers more than 285,000 years, so it's reasonably safe to use TypeScript's 'number' or Java's 'long' to represent these ostensibly-64-bit values. Indicate this with a new Timestamp wrapper type in the bridge layer.
In theory we could push this new Timestamp type down to the libsignal-protocol crate. However, the protocol itself doesn't impose any restrictions on the timestamp fields, so I figured it was best to put it at the bridge layer, to indicate that it's about how Signal specifically uses these fields.
This commit paves the way for being stricter about other u64 values that might want to use the full 64-bit space.