You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Since some recent update on master, they're like this: 02000000960c4000922a1f00000000000000000000000000
Which wouldn't be much of a problem if they were chronologically ordered / sortable. Well, they aren't; only a small part of the ID string actually changes and this part eventually wraps around. This new behavior suddenly broke my application (which uses the TCP JSON interface) and I can't even make a proper fix; the date field is a poor alternative because multiple messages can have the same timestamp and because it's sometimes missing from the event data.
Is this a conscious decision or a bug/oversight? I would really appreciate consistent IDs for accurately determining which of two message objects came earlier.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Message IDs used to be like this:
251340
Since some recent update on master, they're like this:
02000000960c4000922a1f00000000000000000000000000
Which wouldn't be much of a problem if they were chronologically ordered / sortable. Well, they aren't; only a small part of the ID string actually changes and this part eventually wraps around. This new behavior suddenly broke my application (which uses the TCP JSON interface) and I can't even make a proper fix; the date field is a poor alternative because multiple messages can have the same timestamp and because it's sometimes missing from the event data.
Is this a conscious decision or a bug/oversight? I would really appreciate consistent IDs for accurately determining which of two message objects came earlier.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: