Rlp decoding fails for byte strings that also happen to be hex.

[RogerPodacter]

For example, Eth::Rlp.decode(Eth::Rlp.encode("a")) throws RLP string ends with -32 superfluous bytes (Eth::Rlp::DecodingError)

The issue is the hex conversion here: https://github.com/q9f/eth.rb/blob/main/lib/eth/rlp/decoder.rb#L34

[samuelarogbonlo]

How do i replicate this error ? @RogerPodacter

[RogerPodacter]

If you run Eth::Rlp.decode(Eth::Rlp.encode("a")) you expect to get back ”a” but you get an exception instead.

[samuelarogbonlo]

Okay! I have a fix. I will send in a PR now, maybe you can review as well and test.

[samuelarogbonlo]

#293

This is a temporary draft PR that you can test. @RogerPodacter

Also bringing in @q9f for visibility.

[RogerPodacter]

That PR looks good! However there will still be a bug if any RLP-encoded byte string happens to consist of all hex chars due to the Util.hex_to_bin rlp if Util.hex? rlp logic. However I’m not sure whether this is possible outside of the single character case and I do not have a way to replicate it.

This is a problem elsewhere as well and though it stems from a noble desire to make things “just work” for the user and most of the time it’s fine, in production contexts consistent behavior is important.

Anyway, that’s a larger topic. For the moment your PR looks good and is a definite improvement!

[samuelarogbonlo]

Duly noted! I can check other pointers, however we can get this merged.

Thanks

[q9f]

I think the problem is not RLP coder but the utility function that handles binary versus hexstrings.

I just discovered this:

Util.bin_to_hex Util.hex_to_bin "a"
=> "a0"

Which is a very obvious bug. I'll try to fix this first and then revisit the RLP issue above.

Ok this is just "0a" hex but big-endian which is a bit confusing. It should be little endian.

Ok this is just me confusing the nibble sin Ruby's pack library. I got a fix incoming for this.

Sorry for the slow response, I'm not spending so much time on this library anymore.

[q9f]

@RogerPodacter can you check if #298 works for you?