Editorial: Fix off-by-1 error in PartitionPattern #392
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
Gotcha, thanks for the context! |
Right now after the loop finishes, the remainder is
`pattern.substring(nextIndex + 1, len)` (bc it's exclusive) but should
be `pattern.substring(nextIndex, len)` instead since `nextIndex` is
already set to `endIndex + 1` in the loop.
Take `AA{0}BB` as an example, after the loop finishes:
- beginIndex = -1
- endIndex = 4
- nextIndex = 5
so `pattern.substring(5, 7)` yields `BB` (correct) vs the old behavior
would just yield `B`
|
Has consensus according to December ECMA-402. What further action is required on this Editorial PR? |
leobalter
approved these changes
Jan 8, 2020
leobalter
changed the title
|
I'm renaming the PR to reflect it's fixing a typo mostly. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Right now after the loop finishes, the remainder is
pattern.substring(nextIndex + 1, len)(bc it's exclusive) but shouldbe
pattern.substring(nextIndex, len)instead sincenextIndexisalready set to
endIndex + 1in the loop.Take
AA{0}BBas an example, after the loop finishes:so
pattern.substring(5, 7)yieldsBB(correct) vs the old behaviorwould just yield
BReference impl: https://github.com/formatjs/formatjs/blob/master/packages/intl-utils/src/polyfill-utils.ts#L220
Reference test: https://github.com/formatjs/formatjs/blob/master/packages/intl-utils/tests/polyfill-utils.ts