mergiraf/mergiraf
mergiraf/mergiraf
9
213
Fork 45
Code Issues 50 Pull requests 6 Releases 19 Activity Actions

fix: Panic in unicode boundary checking code #578

Merged
wetneb merged 2 commits from wetneb/string_boundary_panic into main 2025-08-31 09:05:34 +02:00 AGit
Conversation 2 Commits 2 Files changed 1 +17 -1
wetneb commented 2025-08-30 23:23:21 +02:00
Owner
Copy link

Since the full length of the string is a valid unicode boundary,
the range of lengths to check needs to end with the "len + 1" excluded
upper bound.

Since the full length of the string is a valid unicode boundary, the range of lengths to check needs to end with the "len + 1" excluded upper bound.
wetneb force-pushed wetneb/string_boundary_panic from 863e51d2ac to ebe7a7b21a 2025-08-30 23:25:11 +02:00 Compare
wetneb commented 2025-08-30 23:26:49 +02:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

Note that Rust's implementation is quite different, I wonder if it would make sense to just copy it?
https://doc.rust-lang.org/src/core/str/mod.rs.html#446

Note that Rust's implementation is quite different, I wonder if it would make sense to just copy it? https://doc.rust-lang.org/src/core/str/mod.rs.html#446
ada4a commented 2025-08-30 23:33:44 +02:00
Owner
Copy link

Note that Rust's implementation is quite different

Yeah, it does some shenanigans to avoid bounds checks and the like -- definitely the right decision for an std function, but I decided to keep it dead simple for our use case (yet still managed to make a mistake 🤦‍♀️)

I wonder if it would make sense to just copy it?

The feature that implements this function has already been stabilized, so I'd say we just wait for Rust 1.91.0..

> Note that Rust's implementation is quite different Yeah, it does some shenanigans to avoid bounds checks and the like -- definitely the right decision for an std function, but I decided to keep it dead simple for our use case (yet still managed to make a mistake 🤦‍♀️) > I wonder if it would make sense to just copy it? The feature that implements this function [has already been stabilized](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/145756), so I'd say we just wait for Rust 1.91.0..
👍 1
ada4a approved these changes 2025-08-30 23:36:14 +02:00
ada4a left a comment
Owner
Copy link

well that's embarrassing.. thank you for noticing this^^

well that's embarrassing.. thank you for noticing this^^
src/std_ext.rs
@ -35,3 +35,3 @@
len
} else {
(index..len)
(index..(len + 1))
ada4a commented 2025-08-30 23:35:21 +02:00
Owner
Copy link

nit: index..=len is imo a bit more readable

nit: `index..=len` is imo a bit more readable
src/std_ext.rs
@ -43,0 +43,4 @@
#[cfg(test)]
mod test {
use crate::StrExt;
ada4a commented 2025-08-30 23:26:51 +02:00
Owner
Copy link

nit: replacing this with use super::* is probably more future-proof..

nit: replacing this with `use super::*` is probably more future-proof..
src/std_ext.rs
@ -43,0 +47,4 @@
#[allow(unstable_name_collisions)]
#[test]
fn char_boundary_at_end() {
ada4a commented 2025-08-30 23:35:44 +02:00
Owner
Copy link

thank you for actually adding a test for this:)

thank you for actually adding a test for this:)
Integrate review feedback
All checks were successful
/ test (pull_request) Successful in 39s
Details
dfb6c5a2d2
wetneb merged commit 17e3d128dd into main 2025-08-31 09:05:34 +02:00
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No reviewers
ada4a
Labels
Clear labels   
Compat/Breaking

Breaking change that won't be backward compatible

  
Kind
Bad merge
Examples where the merging algorithm doesn't work as well as it should

  
Kind
Bug
Something is not working

  
Kind
Documentation
Documentation changes

  
Kind
Enhancement
Improve existing functionality

  
Kind
Feature
New functionality

  
Kind
New language

  
Kind
Security
This is security issue

  
Kind
Testing
Issue or pull request related to testing

  
Priority
Critical
The priority is critical

  
Priority
High
The priority is high

  
Priority
Low
The priority is low

  
Priority
Medium
The priority is medium

  
Reviewed
Confirmed
Issue has been confirmed

  
Reviewed
Duplicate
This issue or pull request already exists

  
Reviewed
Invalid
Invalid issue

  
Reviewed
Won't Fix
This issue won't be fixed

  
Status
Abandoned
Somebody has started to work on this but abandoned work

  
Status
Blocked
Something is blocking this issue or pull request

  
Status
Need More Info
Feedback is required to reproduce issue or to continue work

No labels
Compat/Breaking
Kind
Bad merge
Kind
Bug
Kind
Documentation
Kind
Enhancement
Kind
Feature
Kind
New language
Kind
Security
Kind
Testing
Priority
Critical
Priority
High
Priority
Low
Priority
Medium
Reviewed
Confirmed
Reviewed
Duplicate
Reviewed
Invalid
Reviewed
Won't Fix
Status
Abandoned
Status
Blocked
Status
Need More Info
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No items
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
No assignees
2 participants
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: mergiraf/mergiraf#578
No description provided.
Delete branch "wetneb/string_boundary_panic"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?