Correctly set the value of decode.bytes
to bytes used.
#179
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What is the purpose of this pull request? (put an "X" next to item)
[ ] Documentation update
[X] Bug fix
[ ] New feature
[ ] Other, please explain:
What changes did you make? (Give an overview)
After decoding is complete, update the value of
decode.bytes
todecode.position
to reflect the number of bytes usedWhich issue (if any) does this pull request address?
#178
Is there anything you'd like reviewers to focus on?
The original spec is here: https://github.com/mafintosh/abstract-encoding/ , the README for this project says it is "compatible", I would think this includes this property.
This might be slightly related / affect #61, since this strictly assumes we try and parse a single bencoded piece of data (e.g. two consecutive integers like
i123ei123e
are technically separate).This PR becomes important when trying to bencode e.g. the response for a
ut_metadata
request (https://www.rasterbar.com/products/libtorrent/extension_protocol.html) , since the bencoded data is immediately followed by the binary metadata piece, so returning the number of bytes consumed enables offsetting into the binary data accurately.A workaround I am using right now is to call
encodingLength
on the decoded data to determine how many bytes it would've been, but obviously this is wasteful.