fix(stdlib): Buffer.toBytes should not expose the raw instance of Bytes used by the buffer. #1130
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
…es used by the buffer.
peblair
approved these changes
Feb 6, 2022
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good catch. I agree that there may be some merit to allowing access to the underlying buffer, but (a) I agree it should be a separate function and (b) I always like to caution against premature optimization (if a good use case for such a function arises, we should implement it then).
ospencer
approved these changes
Mar 6, 2022
Closed
Merged
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This PR simply changes
Buffer.toBytesto actually always make a copy like stated in its graindoc comment. Returning the underlying instance of Bytes could lead to nasty unexpected bugs.I'm not sure if we want a way to access the underlying raw Bytes instance or not. It may be handy in some performance critical scenarios. If so, I think it should be a separate function and warn the consumer of the API of risks.