Re: IGNITE-3196 - ready for review

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

Thanks for your explanation.

2017-02-10 18:18 GMT+03:00 Pavel Tupitsyn :

> You can close it.
>
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 6:16 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur 
> wrote:
>
> > I meant what I need to do with opened PR?
> > I need to close it or to leave it open for future merge?
> >
> > 2017-02-10 17:42 GMT+03:00 Pavel Tupitsyn :
> >
> > > The ticket is targeted for 2.0 because this change may affect existing
> > > code.
> > > 1.9 is planned in the near future, and minor versions should not break
> > > existing code.
> > >
> > > Pavel
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> daradu...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Pavel, thanks.
> > > >
> > > > What about PR to master-branch?
> > > >
> > > > 2017-02-10 16:55 GMT+03:00 Pavel Tupitsyn :
> > > >
> > > > > Merged to ignite-2.0.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you for the contribution, Vyacheslav!
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:15 PM, Denis Magda 
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > + Vladimir Ozerov
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It would be better if Vladimir Ozerov does the final review
> > > considering
> > > > > > all the changes in .NET, C++ and Java.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Vladimir, could you do that?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > —
> > > > > > Denis
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Feb 7, 2017, at 5:04 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > +Denis
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>Ok, so we agree on .NET and C++ parts, only Java part is to
> be
> > > > > > reviewed.
> > > > > > > >>Denis, can you have a look?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2017-02-07 15:27 GMT+03:00 Pavel Tupitsyn <
> ptupit...@apache.org
> > > > >  > > > > > ptupit...@apache.org>>:
> > > > > > > Ok, so we agree on .NET and C++ parts, only Java part is to be
> > > > > reviewed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Denis, can you have a look?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pavel
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Igor Sapego <
> > isap...@gridgain.com
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Looks good to me.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > > > > daradu...@gmail.com >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ok, thanks for explanations.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What about this task?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 2017-02-07 13:57 GMT+03:00 Igor Sapego <
> isap...@gridgain.com
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> 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
> > > > > > > > >>> 0x0080 when the second one is 0xFF80.
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> 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 

Re: IGNITE-3196 - ready for review

[Pavel Tupitsyn]

You can close it.

On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 6:16 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur 
wrote:

> I meant what I need to do with opened PR?
> I need to close it or to leave it open for future merge?
>
> 2017-02-10 17:42 GMT+03:00 Pavel Tupitsyn :
>
> > The ticket is targeted for 2.0 because this change may affect existing
> > code.
> > 1.9 is planned in the near future, and minor versions should not break
> > existing code.
> >
> > Pavel
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Pavel, thanks.
> > >
> > > What about PR to master-branch?
> > >
> > > 2017-02-10 16:55 GMT+03:00 Pavel Tupitsyn :
> > >
> > > > Merged to ignite-2.0.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for the contribution, Vyacheslav!
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:15 PM, Denis Magda 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > + Vladimir Ozerov
> > > > >
> > > > > It would be better if Vladimir Ozerov does the final review
> > considering
> > > > > all the changes in .NET, C++ and Java.
> > > > >
> > > > > Vladimir, could you do that?
> > > > >
> > > > > —
> > > > > Denis
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Feb 7, 2017, at 5:04 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +Denis
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>Ok, so we agree on .NET and C++ parts, only Java part is to be
> > > > > reviewed.
> > > > > > >>Denis, can you have a look?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2017-02-07 15:27 GMT+03:00 Pavel Tupitsyn  > > >  > > > > ptupit...@apache.org>>:
> > > > > > Ok, so we agree on .NET and C++ parts, only Java part is to be
> > > > reviewed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Denis, can you have a look?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Pavel
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Igor Sapego <
> isap...@gridgain.com
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Looks good to me.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > > > daradu...@gmail.com >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ok, thanks for explanations.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What about this task?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2017-02-07 13:57 GMT+03:00 Igor Sapego  > > > > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> 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
> > > > > > > >>> 0x0080 when the second one is 0xFF80.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> 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 

Re: IGNITE-3196 - ready for review

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

I meant what I need to do with opened PR?
I need to close it or to leave it open for future merge?

2017-02-10 17:42 GMT+03:00 Pavel Tupitsyn :

> The ticket is targeted for 2.0 because this change may affect existing
> code.
> 1.9 is planned in the near future, and minor versions should not break
> existing code.
>
> Pavel
>
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur 
> wrote:
>
> > Pavel, thanks.
> >
> > What about PR to master-branch?
> >
> > 2017-02-10 16:55 GMT+03:00 Pavel Tupitsyn :
> >
> > > Merged to ignite-2.0.
> > >
> > > Thank you for the contribution, Vyacheslav!
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:15 PM, Denis Magda 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > + Vladimir Ozerov
> > > >
> > > > It would be better if Vladimir Ozerov does the final review
> considering
> > > > all the changes in .NET, C++ and Java.
> > > >
> > > > Vladimir, could you do that?
> > > >
> > > > —
> > > > Denis
> > > >
> > > > > On Feb 7, 2017, at 5:04 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > +Denis
> > > > >
> > > > > >>Ok, so we agree on .NET and C++ parts, only Java part is to be
> > > > reviewed.
> > > > > >>Denis, can you have a look?
> > > > >
> > > > > 2017-02-07 15:27 GMT+03:00 Pavel Tupitsyn  > >  > > > ptupit...@apache.org>>:
> > > > > Ok, so we agree on .NET and C++ parts, only Java part is to be
> > > reviewed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Denis, can you have a look?
> > > > >
> > > > > Pavel
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Igor Sapego  > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Looks good to me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > Igor
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > > daradu...@gmail.com >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ok, thanks for explanations.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What about this task?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2017-02-07 13:57 GMT+03:00 Igor Sapego  > > > >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> 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
> > > > > > >>> 0x0080 when the second one is 0xFF80.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> 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
> > > > > > >>  viewQueued.html?itemId=445824
> > <
> > > > 

Re: IGNITE-3196 - ready for review

[Pavel Tupitsyn]

The ticket is targeted for 2.0 because this change may affect existing code.
1.9 is planned in the near future, and minor versions should not break
existing code.

Pavel

On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur 
wrote:

> Pavel, thanks.
>
> What about PR to master-branch?
>
> 2017-02-10 16:55 GMT+03:00 Pavel Tupitsyn :
>
> > Merged to ignite-2.0.
> >
> > Thank you for the contribution, Vyacheslav!
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:15 PM, Denis Magda  wrote:
> >
> > > + Vladimir Ozerov
> > >
> > > It would be better if Vladimir Ozerov does the final review considering
> > > all the changes in .NET, C++ and Java.
> > >
> > > Vladimir, could you do that?
> > >
> > > —
> > > Denis
> > >
> > > > On Feb 7, 2017, at 5:04 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > +Denis
> > > >
> > > > >>Ok, so we agree on .NET and C++ parts, only Java part is to be
> > > reviewed.
> > > > >>Denis, can you have a look?
> > > >
> > > > 2017-02-07 15:27 GMT+03:00 Pavel Tupitsyn  >  > > ptupit...@apache.org>>:
> > > > Ok, so we agree on .NET and C++ parts, only Java part is to be
> > reviewed.
> > > >
> > > > Denis, can you have a look?
> > > >
> > > > Pavel
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Igor Sapego  > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Looks good to me.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > Igor
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > daradu...@gmail.com >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Ok, thanks for explanations.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What about this task?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2017-02-07 13:57 GMT+03:00 Igor Sapego  > > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> 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
> > > > > >>> 0x0080 when the second one is 0xFF80.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> 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  > > >:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > 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 >
> > 

Re: IGNITE-3196 - ready for review

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

Pavel, thanks.

What about PR to master-branch?

2017-02-10 16:55 GMT+03:00 Pavel Tupitsyn :

> Merged to ignite-2.0.
>
> Thank you for the contribution, Vyacheslav!
>
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:15 PM, Denis Magda  wrote:
>
> > + Vladimir Ozerov
> >
> > It would be better if Vladimir Ozerov does the final review considering
> > all the changes in .NET, C++ and Java.
> >
> > Vladimir, could you do that?
> >
> > —
> > Denis
> >
> > > On Feb 7, 2017, at 5:04 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > +Denis
> > >
> > > >>Ok, so we agree on .NET and C++ parts, only Java part is to be
> > reviewed.
> > > >>Denis, can you have a look?
> > >
> > > 2017-02-07 15:27 GMT+03:00 Pavel Tupitsyn   > ptupit...@apache.org>>:
> > > Ok, so we agree on .NET and C++ parts, only Java part is to be
> reviewed.
> > >
> > > Denis, can you have a look?
> > >
> > > Pavel
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Igor Sapego  > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Looks good to me.
> > > >
> > > > Best Regards,
> > > > Igor
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > daradu...@gmail.com >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Ok, thanks for explanations.
> > > > >
> > > > > What about this task?
> > > > >
> > > > > 2017-02-07 13:57 GMT+03:00 Igor Sapego  > >:
> > > > >
> > > > >> 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  > >
> > > > 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
> > > > >>> 0x0080 when the second one is 0xFF80.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> 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  > >:
> > > > 
> > > > > 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
> > > > >>> >  tab
> > 
> > > > >>> =buildResultsDiv=IgniteTests_IgnitePlatformCppLi
> > > > >>> nux#testNameId-9178617718508801660>
> > > > >>> > - TestEscConvertFunctionDouble
> > > > >>> > 

Re: IGNITE-3196 - ready for review

[Pavel Tupitsyn]

Merged to ignite-2.0.

Thank you for the contribution, Vyacheslav!

On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:15 PM, Denis Magda  wrote:

> + Vladimir Ozerov
>
> It would be better if Vladimir Ozerov does the final review considering
> all the changes in .NET, C++ and Java.
>
> Vladimir, could you do that?
>
> —
> Denis
>
> > On Feb 7, 2017, at 5:04 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur 
> wrote:
> >
> > +Denis
> >
> > >>Ok, so we agree on .NET and C++ parts, only Java part is to be
> reviewed.
> > >>Denis, can you have a look?
> >
> > 2017-02-07 15:27 GMT+03:00 Pavel Tupitsyn >:
> > Ok, so we agree on .NET and C++ parts, only Java part is to be reviewed.
> >
> > Denis, can you have a look?
> >
> > Pavel
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Igor Sapego  > wrote:
> >
> > > Looks good to me.
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > > Igor
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> daradu...@gmail.com >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ok, thanks for explanations.
> > > >
> > > > What about this task?
> > > >
> > > > 2017-02-07 13:57 GMT+03:00 Igor Sapego  >:
> > > >
> > > >> 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  >
> > > 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
> > > >>> 0x0080 when the second one is 0xFF80.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> 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  >:
> > > 
> > > > 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  >:
> > > >>
> > > >>> .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
> > > >>> >  
> > > >>> =buildResultsDiv=IgniteTests_IgnitePlatformCppLi
> > > >>> nux#testNameId-9178617718508801660>
> > > >>> > - TestEscConvertFunctionDouble
> > > >>> >  
> > > >>> =buildResultsDiv=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 

Re: IGNITE-3196 - ready for review

[Denis Magda]

+ Vladimir Ozerov 

It would be better if Vladimir Ozerov does the final review considering all the 
changes in .NET, C++ and Java.

Vladimir, could you do that?

—
Denis

> On Feb 7, 2017, at 5:04 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur  wrote:
> 
> +Denis
> 
> >>Ok, so we agree on .NET and C++ parts, only Java part is to be reviewed.
> >>Denis, can you have a look?
> 
> 2017-02-07 15:27 GMT+03:00 Pavel Tupitsyn  >:
> Ok, so we agree on .NET and C++ parts, only Java part is to be reviewed.
> 
> Denis, can you have a look?
> 
> Pavel
> 
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Igor Sapego  > wrote:
> 
> > Looks good to me.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Igor
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur  > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Ok, thanks for explanations.
> > >
> > > What about this task?
> > >
> > > 2017-02-07 13:57 GMT+03:00 Igor Sapego  > > >:
> > >
> > >> 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  > >> >
> > 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
> > >>> 0x0080 when the second one is 0xFF80.
> > >>>
> > >>> 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  >  >:
> > 
> > > 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
> > >>  > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 2017-02-06 13:20 GMT+03:00 Pavel Tupitsyn  > >> >:
> > >>
> > >>> .NET changes look good to me.
> > >>>
> > >>> Pavel
> > >>>
> > >>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Igor Sapego  > >>> >
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> > Vyacheslav, I can see two ODBC tests fail in C++ test suits that
> > >>> should
> > >>> > not:
> > >>> > - TestEscConvertFunctionFloat
> > >>> >  > >>> > 
> > >>> =buildResultsDiv=IgniteTests_IgnitePlatformCppLi
> > >>> nux#testNameId-9178617718508801660>
> > >>> > - TestEscConvertFunctionDouble
> > >>> >  > >>> > 
> > >>> =buildResultsDiv=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 >
> > 

Re: IGNITE-3196 - ready for review

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

+Denis

>>Ok, so we agree on .NET and C++ parts, only Java part is to be reviewed.
>>Denis, can you have a look?

2017-02-07 15:27 GMT+03:00 Pavel Tupitsyn :

> Ok, so we agree on .NET and C++ parts, only Java part is to be reviewed.
>
> Denis, can you have a look?
>
> Pavel
>
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Igor Sapego  wrote:
>
> > Looks good to me.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Igor
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Ok, thanks for explanations.
> > >
> > > What about this task?
> > >
> > > 2017-02-07 13:57 GMT+03:00 Igor Sapego :
> > >
> > >> 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 
> > 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
> > >>> 0x0080 when the second one is 0xFF80.
> > >>>
> > >>> 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 :
> > 
> > > 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
> > >> 
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 2017-02-06 13:20 GMT+03:00 Pavel Tupitsyn :
> > >>
> > >>> .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
> > >>> >  > >>> =buildResultsDiv=IgniteTests_IgnitePlatformCppLi
> > >>> nux#testNameId-9178617718508801660>
> > >>> > - TestEscConvertFunctionDouble
> > >>> >  > >>> =buildResultsDiv=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
> > >>> >>  > >>> =buildResultsDiv=IgniteTests_RunAll>
> > >>> >> .NET tests
> > >>> >>  > >>> =buildResultsDiv=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, 

Re: IGNITE-3196 - ready for review

[Pavel Tupitsyn]

Ok, so we agree on .NET and C++ parts, only Java part is to be reviewed.

Denis, can you have a look?

Pavel

On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Igor Sapego  wrote:

> Looks good to me.
>
> Best Regards,
> Igor
>
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur 
> wrote:
>
> > Ok, thanks for explanations.
> >
> > What about this task?
> >
> > 2017-02-07 13:57 GMT+03:00 Igor Sapego :
> >
> >> 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 
> 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
> >>> 0x0080 when the second one is 0xFF80.
> >>>
> >>> 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 :
> 
> > 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
> >> 
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2017-02-06 13:20 GMT+03:00 Pavel Tupitsyn :
> >>
> >>> .NET changes look good to me.
> >>>
> >>> Pavel
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Igor Sapego 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > Vyacheslav, I can see two ODBC tests fail in C++ test suits that
> >>> should
> >>> > not:
> >>> > - TestEscConvertFunctionFloat
> >>> >  >>> =buildResultsDiv=IgniteTests_IgnitePlatformCppLi
> >>> nux#testNameId-9178617718508801660>
> >>> > - TestEscConvertFunctionDouble
> >>> >  >>> =buildResultsDiv=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
> >>> >>  >>> =buildResultsDiv=IgniteTests_RunAll>
> >>> >> .NET tests
> >>> >>  >>> =buildResultsDiv=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 

Re: IGNITE-3196 - ready for review

[Igor Sapego]

Looks good to me.

Best Regards,
Igor

On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur 
wrote:

> Ok, thanks for explanations.
>
> What about this task?
>
> 2017-02-07 13:57 GMT+03:00 Igor Sapego :
>
>> 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  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
>>> 0x0080 when the second one is 0xFF80.
>>>
>>> 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 >> > 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 :

> 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
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>> 2017-02-06 13:20 GMT+03:00 Pavel Tupitsyn :
>>
>>> .NET changes look good to me.
>>>
>>> Pavel
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Igor Sapego 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Vyacheslav, I can see two ODBC tests fail in C++ test suits that
>>> should
>>> > not:
>>> > - TestEscConvertFunctionFloat
>>> > >> =buildResultsDiv=IgniteTests_IgnitePlatformCppLi
>>> nux#testNameId-9178617718508801660>
>>> > - TestEscConvertFunctionDouble
>>> > >> =buildResultsDiv=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
>>> >> >> =buildResultsDiv=IgniteTests_RunAll>
>>> >> .NET tests
>>> >> >> =buildResultsDiv=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 >> >:
>>> >>>
>>>  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 

Re: IGNITE-3196 - ready for review

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

Ok, thanks for explanations.

What about this task?

2017-02-07 13:57 GMT+03:00 Igor Sapego :

> 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  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
>> 0x0080 when the second one is 0xFF80.
>>
>> 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 
>> 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 :
>>>
 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  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
> 
>
>
>
> 2017-02-06 13:20 GMT+03:00 Pavel Tupitsyn :
>
>> .NET changes look good to me.
>>
>> Pavel
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Igor Sapego 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Vyacheslav, I can see two ODBC tests fail in C++ test suits that
>> should
>> > not:
>> > - TestEscConvertFunctionFloat
>> > > =buildResultsDiv=IgniteTests_IgnitePlatformCppLi
>> nux#testNameId-9178617718508801660>
>> > - TestEscConvertFunctionDouble
>> > > =buildResultsDiv=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
>> >> > =buildResultsDiv=IgniteTests_RunAll>
>> >> .NET tests
>> >> > =buildResultsDiv=IgniteTests_IgnitePlatformNet>
>> >>
>> >> How about this solution?
>> >>
>> >> 2017-02-03 13:59 GMT+03:00 Vyacheslav Daradur > >:
>> >>
>> >>> 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 :
>> >>>
>>  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
>>  

Re: IGNITE-3196 - ready for review

[Igor Sapego]

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  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
> 0x0080 when the second one is 0xFF80.
>
> 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 
> 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 :
>>
>>> 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 
>>> 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
 



 2017-02-06 13:20 GMT+03:00 Pavel Tupitsyn :

> .NET changes look good to me.
>
> Pavel
>
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Igor Sapego 
> wrote:
>
> > Vyacheslav, I can see two ODBC tests fail in C++ test suits that
> should
> > not:
> > - TestEscConvertFunctionFloat
> >  =buildResultsDiv=IgniteTests_IgnitePlatformCppLi
> nux#testNameId-9178617718508801660>
> > - TestEscConvertFunctionDouble
> >  =buildResultsDiv=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
> >>  =buildResultsDiv=IgniteTests_RunAll>
> >> .NET tests
> >>  =buildResultsDiv=IgniteTests_IgnitePlatformNet>
> >>
> >> How about this solution?
> >>
> >> 2017-02-03 13:59 GMT+03:00 Vyacheslav Daradur  >:
> >>
> >>> 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 :
> >>>
>  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

Re: IGNITE-3196 - ready for review

[Igor Sapego]

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
0x0080 when the second one is 0xFF80.

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 
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 :
>
>> 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 
>> 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
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2017-02-06 13:20 GMT+03:00 Pavel Tupitsyn :
>>>
 .NET changes look good to me.

 Pavel

 On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Igor Sapego 
 wrote:

 > Vyacheslav, I can see two ODBC tests fail in C++ test suits that
 should
 > not:
 > - TestEscConvertFunctionFloat
 > 
 > - TestEscConvertFunctionDouble
 > 
 > .
 >
 > 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
 >> 
 >> .NET tests
 >> 
 >>
 >> How about this solution?
 >>
 >> 2017-02-03 13:59 GMT+03:00 Vyacheslav Daradur :
 >>
 >>> 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 :
 >>>
  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 С++ 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,

Re: IGNITE-3196 - ready for review

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

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 :

> 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 
> 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
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>> 2017-02-06 13:20 GMT+03:00 Pavel Tupitsyn :
>>
>>> .NET changes look good to me.
>>>
>>> Pavel
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Igor Sapego 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Vyacheslav, I can see two ODBC tests fail in C++ test suits that should
>>> > not:
>>> > - TestEscConvertFunctionFloat
>>> > >> =buildResultsDiv=IgniteTests_IgnitePlatformCppLi
>>> nux#testNameId-9178617718508801660>
>>> > - TestEscConvertFunctionDouble
>>> > >> =buildResultsDiv=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
>>> >> >> =buildResultsDiv=IgniteTests_RunAll>
>>> >> .NET tests
>>> >> >> =buildResultsDiv=IgniteTests_IgnitePlatformNet>
>>> >>
>>> >> How about this solution?
>>> >>
>>> >> 2017-02-03 13:59 GMT+03:00 Vyacheslav Daradur :
>>> >>
>>> >>> 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 :
>>> >>>
>>>  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 С++ 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=123456789, scale=0
>>>  > * 3 Serialize in .NET; number=123456789, scale=0
>>>  > * 4 Deserialize in Java; number=123456789, scale=0
>>>  >
>>>  > Logically: (1) 123456789 * 10^4 == (2)  123456789
>>>  >
>>>  > In Java (1) not equal (2), because scales are different.
>>>  >
>>>  > Any thougths?
>>>  >
>>> 

Re: IGNITE-3196 - ready for review

[Igor Sapego]

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 
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
> 
>
>
>
> 2017-02-06 13:20 GMT+03:00 Pavel Tupitsyn :
>
>> .NET changes look good to me.
>>
>> Pavel
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Igor Sapego  wrote:
>>
>> > Vyacheslav, I can see two ODBC tests fail in C++ test suits that should
>> > not:
>> > - TestEscConvertFunctionFloat
>> > > =buildResultsDiv=IgniteTests_IgnitePlatformCppLi
>> nux#testNameId-9178617718508801660>
>> > - TestEscConvertFunctionDouble
>> > > =buildResultsDiv=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
>> >> > =buildResultsDiv=IgniteTests_RunAll>
>> >> .NET tests
>> >> > =buildResultsDiv=IgniteTests_IgnitePlatformNet>
>> >>
>> >> How about this solution?
>> >>
>> >> 2017-02-03 13:59 GMT+03:00 Vyacheslav Daradur :
>> >>
>> >>> 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 :
>> >>>
>>  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 С++ 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=123456789, scale=0
>>  > * 3 Serialize in .NET; number=123456789, scale=0
>>  > * 4 Deserialize in Java; number=123456789, scale=0
>>  >
>>  > Logically: (1) 123456789 * 10^4 == (2)  123456789
>>  >
>>  > In Java (1) not equal (2), because scales are different.
>>  >
>>  > Any thougths?
>>  >
>>  > 2017-01-31 14:08 GMT+03:00 Pavel Tupitsyn :
>>  >
>>  >> 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>
>>  

IGNITE-3196 - ready for review

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

Hello. I fixed it. Please, review.

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3196 - Marshaling works wrong
for the BigDecimals that have negative scale