Question about max byte slice

[torwig]

Hi, I see the following comment (https://github.com/hamba/avro/blob/main/config.go#L49C10-L49C10)

// MaxByteSliceSize is the maximum size of `bytes` or `string` types the Reader will create, defaulting to 1MiB.
// If this size is exceeded, the Reader returns an error. This can be disabled by setting a negative number.
MaxByteSliceSize int

And the function here (https://github.com/hamba/avro/blob/main/config.go#L49C10-L49C10):

func (c *frozenConfig) getMaxByteSliceSize() int {
	size := c.config.MaxByteSliceSize
	if size == 0 {
		return maxByteSliceSize
	}
	return size
}

And here we have a constant (https://github.com/hamba/avro/blob/main/config.go#L10C1-L11C37):
const maxByteSliceSize = 1024 * 1024

My question is: 1024*1024 it's not equal to 1 MiB. Is there a typo in the configuration parameter or typo in the maxByteSliceSize value? Or there is somewhere multiplication by 1024 before using it?

BTW, here (https://github.com/hamba/avro/blob/main/reader.go#L227) I see the usage of the function as is, without any multiplication:

        size := int(r.ReadLong())
   .................
        if max := r.cfg.getMaxByteSliceSize(); max > 0 && size > max {
		fnName := "Read" + strings.ToTitle(op)
		r.ReportError(fnName, "size is greater than `Config.MaxByteSliceSize`")
		return nil
	}

Or ReadLong gets the size in kilobytes?

Thank you for any explanation.

[nrwiersma]

This is a bug in maxByteSliceSize. Thanks for catching this.

[hhromic]

My question is: 1024*1024 it's not equal to 1 MiB. Is there a typo in the configuration parameter or typo in the maxByteSliceSize value? Or there is somewhere multiplication by 1024 before using it?

I know this was recently fixed, but I got very curious about this statement. To my understanding, 1024*1024 is equal to 1 MiB. The PR fixing this replaced 1024*1024 with 1_048_576, but both expressions are equal.

fmt.Println(1024*1024 == 1_048_576)
// Output: true

So, I can't wrap my head around what was fixed by it 🙈.

[torwig]

@hhromic Yes, indeed equal. I understood it wrong and persuaded others.

[torwig]

My apologies, gentlemen.

[hhromic]

Ah, peace of mind restored! 😄.
I still liked the constant renaming, it is better now IMHO 👍.

[nrwiersma]

No harm no foul. i could have scrutinised this more, but didn't.