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

Thanks for confirming. I was wondering myself about introducing a new name in order to avoid the mess of the breaking change. I would just recommend we make sure to deprecate the old ones that are named poorly. I'll enter a ticket in a bit. Thanks! ~Brad *Developer Advocate* *Ortus Solutions, Corp * E-mail: brad(a)coldbox.org ColdBox Platform: http://www.coldbox.org Blog: http://www.codersrevolution.com On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 6:44 PM Stuart Douglas <sdouglas(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > 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 > >