Re: [undertow-dev] Max and Min content size predicates are implemented backwards

Yea, this does not seem correct, but IMHO they are both named terribly. In order to avoid a breaking change how about we deprecate these, and replace them with 'request-larger-than' and 'request-smaller-than' to make it clearer exactly what is being tested? Stuart On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 at 04:39, Brad Wood <bdw429s(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > These two predicates from undertow are named/implemented backwards. The > "max" should be ensuring the provided value is at least *as small or > smaller* and the "min" should be ensuring the provided value is at least *as > big or bigger*. But here are the descriptions of each one. > > *MinContentSizePredicate* > >> Predicate that returns true if the Content-Size of a request is below a >> given value. > > > > *MaxContentSizePredicate* > >> Predicate that returns true if the Content-Size of a request is above a >> given value. > > > So to spell it out, if someone uses the following predicate: > > max-content-size(5) > > > That means they are saying the maximum content size is 5 bytes. So, > here's a quick truth table: > > - If content length is *4 bytes *-> should return *true *(under the > max) > - if content length is *5 bytes *-> should return *true *(at the max, > but not over) > - if content length is *6 bytes *-> should return *false *(over the > max) > > But this is the exact opposite of how these predicates have been > implemented. The javadoc matches the behavior, but not the name. > > Can I get a quick confirmation this is, in fact, backwards before I enter > a ticket and/or pull request. Note, this will be a breaking change to fix. > > Thanks! > > ~Brad > > *Developer Advocate* > *Ortus Solutions, Corp * > > E-mail: brad(a)coldbox.org > ColdBox Platform: http://www.coldbox.org > Blog: http://www.codersrevolution.com > > _______________________________________________ > undertow-dev mailing list > undertow-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev