On Tue Dec 16, 2025 at 3:14 PM JST, Alistair Popple wrote: > On 2025-12-16 at 13:57 +1100, Alexandre Courbot <[email protected]> wrote... >> The size of messages' payload is miscalculated, leading to extra data >> passed to the message handler. While this is not a problem with our >> current set of commands, others with a variable-length payload may >> misbehave. Fix this by introducing a method returning the payload size >> and using it. > > The whole inconsistency of the message element struct not including it's > header > fields in the size whilst the rpc struct does has caused endless confusion, > this > looks much better, thanks for fixing!
Indeed. It would be so much simpler if the RPC header just included the size of its *payload* - because if we have the header to begin with, of course it is part of the message! Instead we have to deal with the possibility of a nonsensical length value if it is shorter than that of the header. Thankfully a saturating sub always yields a correct behavior, else we would have to return a `Result`. :/ > > Reviewed-by: Alistair Popple <[email protected]> Thanks!
