But that's Ok. Since we use int8_t for bytes in C++ as well I guess your -0x80 may have more sense than 0x80.
Best Regards, Igor On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 1:54 PM, Igor Sapego <isap...@gridgain.com> wrote: > I was just curious. > > In C++ both constants 0x80 and -0x80 are of type 'int' and have the same > lower byte, so they give the same result. Though first number is actually > 0x00000080 when the second one is 0xFFFFFF80. > > So it's just made a minus sign look a little redundant and pointless to me > in C++ code. > > Best Regards, > Igor > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 10:15 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur <daradu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Byte.MIN_VALUE = -128 = -0x80 >> Byte.MAX_VALUE = 127 = 0x7F >> >> It is just more evident for me. >> >> Maybe, I just have the Java programming style. >> >> In Java: >> byte a = 100 | -0x80; // compiled >> byte b = 100 | 0x80; // doesn't compile, explicit type casting is >> neccessary (byte)(100 | 0x80) >> System.out.println(a | -0x80); // -28 >> System.out.println(a | 0x80); // 228 - cast to int >> >> Is it bad style? >> >> 2017-02-06 20:04 GMT+03:00 Igor Sapego <isap...@gridgain.com>: >> >>> Vyacheslav, >>> >>> Overall looks good. But why do you use -0x80 instead of 0x80? >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> Igor >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 5:36 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur <daradu...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Igor, >>>> >>>> I didn't change the CPP code before approval approach. >>>> I shall write directly, sorry. >>>> >>>> But I made CPP changes already. >>>> >>>> > TestEscConvertFunctionFloat >>>> > TestEscConvertFunctionDouble. >>>> These tests were passed >>>> <http://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewQueued.html?itemId=445824> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2017-02-06 13:20 GMT+03:00 Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org>: >>>> >>>>> .NET changes look good to me. >>>>> >>>>> Pavel >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Igor Sapego <isap...@gridgain.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > Vyacheslav, I can see two ODBC tests fail in C++ test suits that >>>>> should >>>>> > not: >>>>> > - TestEscConvertFunctionFloat >>>>> > <http://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=444207&tab >>>>> =buildResultsDiv&buildTypeId=IgniteTests_IgnitePlatformCppLi >>>>> nux#testNameId-9178617718508801660> >>>>> > - TestEscConvertFunctionDouble >>>>> > <http://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=444207&tab >>>>> =buildResultsDiv&buildTypeId=IgniteTests_IgnitePlatformCppLi >>>>> nux#testNameId5432107083822590090> >>>>> > . >>>>> > >>>>> > I believe, this is because I can't see any changes in C++ Decimal >>>>> > marshaling code. >>>>> > Please, pay attention to file ignite\modules\platforms\cpp\ >>>>> > odbc\src\utility.cpp, >>>>> > functions ReadDecimal and WriteDecimal. >>>>> > >>>>> > Best Regards, >>>>> > Igor >>>>> > >>>>> > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur < >>>>> daradu...@gmail.com> >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> >> Pavel, Igor >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Please, review it again. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/1473/files >>>>> >> >>>>> >> All tests >>>>> >> <http://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=444231&tab >>>>> =buildResultsDiv&buildTypeId=IgniteTests_RunAll> >>>>> >> .NET tests >>>>> >> <http://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=443439&tab >>>>> =buildResultsDiv&buildTypeId=IgniteTests_IgnitePlatformNet> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> How about this solution? >>>>> >> >>>>> >> 2017-02-03 13:59 GMT+03:00 Vyacheslav Daradur <daradu...@gmail.com >>>>> >: >>>>> >> >>>>> >>> 1. On my first question >>>>> >>> I think up, if we serialize only positive numbers, we can write >>>>> sign in >>>>> >>> first byte, because it is positive always. >>>>> >>> I will try to make this decision >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> 2017-02-03 12:48 GMT+03:00 Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org>: >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>>> Vyacheslav, >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> I see the problem now. Yes, negative scale is not supported in >>>>> .NET. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> I don't think we should do the multiplication. As you described, >>>>> this >>>>> >>>> will >>>>> >>>> break equality on Java side. SQL queries might be broken, etc. >>>>> >>>> I think we should throw an exception in .NET when encountering >>>>> negative >>>>> >>>> decimal scale. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Vladimir O, any thoughts? >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Pavel >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur < >>>>> >>>> daradu...@gmail.com> >>>>> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > Hello. >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > I looked and understood the code of methods ReadDecimal and >>>>> >>>> WriteDecimal >>>>> >>>> > on .NET platform. >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > 1. At the moment remaking of this methods for my >>>>> Java-decimal-fix is >>>>> >>>> very >>>>> >>>> > difficult, it needs to write new methods for >>>>> >>>> serialization/deserialization >>>>> >>>> > of negative decimals. >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > I can make it, but there is simpler decision: to add additional >>>>> byte >>>>> >>>> for >>>>> >>>> > sign. >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > I need advice: difficult solution (new methods .net) Versus : >>>>> simple >>>>> >>>> > solutions (additional byte)? >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > *I don't know yet, what changes are necessary on ะก++ platform. >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > 2. I see a problem with the negative scale on .NET platform. >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > Now negative scale is forbidden. >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > We can make: >>>>> >>>> > if (scale < 0) return Decimal.Multiply(new decimal(lo, mid, hi, >>>>> neg, >>>>> >>>> 0), >>>>> >>>> > new decimal(Math.Pow(10, -scale))); >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > But there is the problem: >>>>> >>>> > * 1 Serialize in Java; number=123456789, scale=-4 >>>>> >>>> > * 2 Deserialize in .NET; number=1234567890000, scale=0 >>>>> >>>> > * 3 Serialize in .NET; number=1234567890000, scale=0 >>>>> >>>> > * 4 Deserialize in Java; number=1234567890000, scale=0 >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > Logically: (1) 123456789 * 10^4 == (2) 1234567890000 >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > In Java (1) not equal (2), because scales are different. >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > Any thougths? >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > 2017-01-31 14:08 GMT+03:00 Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org >>>>> >: >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>> >> Vyacheslav, >>>>> >>>> >> >>>>> >>>> >> I'm not sure I understand the code you attached. >>>>> >>>> >> >>>>> >>>> >> If you know how to fix the .NET part, can you just do it in >>>>> your PR >>>>> >>>> and >>>>> >>>> >> run "Platform .NET" on TeamCity to verify? >>>>> >>>> >> http://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=Ignite >>>>> >>>> >> Tests_IgnitePlatformNet >>>>> >>>> >> >>>>> >>>> >> Thanks, >>>>> >>>> >> >>>>> >>>> >> Pavel >>>>> >>>> >> >>>>> >>>> >> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur < >>>>> >>>> daradu...@gmail.com> >>>>> >>>> >> wrote: >>>>> >>>> >> >>>>> >>>> >>> Pavel, I see that you are the main contributor of Ignite.NET. >>>>> >>>> >>> >>>>> >>>> >>> We should repair BinaryUtils#ReadDecimal and >>>>> >>>> BinaryUtils#WriteDecimal. >>>>> >>>> >>> >>>>> >>>> >>> *ReadDecimal: >>>>> >>>> >>> byte[] mag = ReadByteArray(stream); // including at least one >>>>> sign >>>>> >>>> bit, >>>>> >>>> >>> which is (ceil((this.bitLength() + 1)/8)) >>>>> >>>> >>> bool neg = (mag[0] < 0); >>>>> >>>> >>> if (scale < 0) >>>>> >>>> >>> // TODO: a scale of -3 means the unscaled value is multiplied >>>>> by >>>>> >>>> 1000 >>>>> >>>> >>> >>>>> >>>> >>> *WriteDecimal: >>>>> >>>> >>> int sign = vals[3] < 0 ? -1 : 0; >>>>> >>>> >>> stream.WriteInt(sign); >>>>> >>>> >>> >>>>> >>>> >>> Can you help with this task? >>>>> >>>> >>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>>>> >>>> >>> 2017-01-31 12:46 GMT+03:00 Igor Sapego <isap...@gridgain.com >>>>> >: >>>>> >>>> >>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Vyacheslav, >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> I had a look at your PR and left some comments in Jira. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Best Regards, >>>>> >>>> >>>> Igor >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur < >>>>> >>>> >>>> daradu...@gmail.com> >>>>> >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> > Hello. I fixed it. Please, review. >>>>> >>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>> >>>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3196 - >>>>> Marshaling >>>>> >>>> works >>>>> >>>> >>>> wrong >>>>> >>>> >>>> > for the BigDecimals that have negative scale >>>>> >>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>>>> >>>> >> >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >> >>>>> > >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
