https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/11664/SHA1-hashStream-should-return-a-ByteArray-of-size-20
with slice On 13 Sep 2013, at 15:38, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[email protected]> wrote: > Bump. > > Max ? > > On 30 Aug 2013, at 13:52, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 30 Aug 2013, at 13:39, Marcus Denker <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Aug 30, 2013, at 1:35 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I'm not aware of such a change... >>>> this is probably an error/side effect of something else. >>>> >>> This is a side effect of the merging of the two nearly identical but >>> duplicated SHA1 implementations in the image… >>> >>> https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/5469/SHA1-duplicated-implementations >> >> I want to wait for Max to respond/explain. >> >> But according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sha1 >> >> "SHA-1 produces a 160-bit (20-byte) hash value. A SHA-1 hash value is >> typically expressed as a hexadecimal number, 40 digits long." >> >> The previous contract of returning a ByteArray of size 20 is more correct >> than an Integer, although both are mathematically equivalent. It is also >> very easy to send #hex to a ByteArray to get the most common human >> representation of such a hash. >> >>>> Esteban >>>> >>>> On Aug 29, 2013, at 3:05 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Max, >>>>> >>>>> Why was the contract of SHA1>>hashStream: changed ? >>>>> >>>>> It used to return a ByteArray like other HashFunction subclasses, now it >>>>> returns an Integer. I see that you also changed the tests with this >>>>> assumption. >>>>> >>>>> MD5 hashMessage: 'foo'. >>>>> >>>>> #[172 189 24 219 76 194 248 92 237 239 101 79 204 196 164 216] >>>>> >>>>> SHA1 hashMessage: 'foo'. >>>>> >>>>> 68123873083688143418383284816464454849230703155 >>>>> >>>>> It broke Zinc-WebSockets in 3.0 and now I will have to do an ugly hack to >>>>> make the code work on multiple Pharo versions. >>>>> >>>>> Can you please explain ? >>>>> >>>>> Sven >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
