-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.1k
Fix bug in Bytes.lastIndexOf when array is empty and position is not 2²⁵⁶-1 #5797
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
Amxx
merged 8 commits into
OpenZeppelin:master
from
Amxx:bugfix/Bytes-lastIndexOf-empty
Jul 16, 2025
Merged
Changes from 6 commits
Commits
Show all changes
8 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
c62f26d
Fix bug in Bytes.lastIndexOf when array is empty and position is not …
Amxx aa1cdb8
add changeset
Amxx 29b1b35
branchless
Amxx edf974e
simplify fuzz cases
Amxx 655c3c0
independant fuzz tests of and without pos
Amxx cfbb2e6
Update .changeset/witty-hats-flow.md
ernestognw df473af
use Math.saturatingAdd to more closelly match original syntax
Amxx 6eb86f4
minimize changes
Amxx File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ | ||
--- | ||
'openzeppelin-solidity': patch | ||
--- | ||
|
||
`Bytes`: Fix `lastIndexOf(bytes,byte,uint256)` with empty buffers and finite position to correctly return `type(uint256).max` instead of accessing uninitialized memory sections. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This might be more readable, and just as effective.
@ernestognw @vesselinux @levi-sledd WDYT ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is indeed equivalent and more readable.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@Amxx Ahh, sorry to say but I find this to be even less readable haha. That's maybe because the overflow logic is buried inside the
saturatingAdd
thus making handling of edge cases less obvious. At the same time, I fully accept the arguments against myif-else
suggestion.The above said, I appreciate that readability is subjective, so feel free to adopt whichever of the two suggested variants the Contracts team like best. Indeed both are functionally equivalent and that's what matters at the end of the day.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Interesting point of view. imo "burying the logic" should be the goal of the
saturatingAdd
function (and generally for any other library fn). In fact, I do prefer thesaturatingAdd
given I'd recommend using it to other developers in a similar situation as this.