Add support for raw strings#41
Open
MizzMaster wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Conversation
Adds raw string alternatives to auto converted unicode strings Helps avoid data loss while converting LFS-encoded strings
MizzMaster
force-pushed
the
feature-raw-strings
branch
from
December 24, 2025 02:55
fc0e32b to
95fcffe
Compare
This file contains hidden or 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Why did I add such feature?
It gives us more precision and control over the bytes that we receive from and send to InSim. More specifically: to avoid data-losses caused by unicode conversion.
I was using LfsUnicodeEncoding2 with an LfsEncodingChecker class that would do a round-trip to check if there is a data loss while using GetString and GetBytes. It worked totally fine as long as the bytes that I received were valid LFS-encoded strings. Someone had manually saved their cfg.txt and it converted some of the Japanese characters in their nickname (
Ply Namein cfg.txt) into UTF-8 replacement characters�, which got encoded asEFBFBD, which isn't a valid sequence in LFS-encoded strings. LfsUnicodeEncoding2 would fall back to?forEFBF, then round-trip would make it3F(ASCII question mark), which would make my checker warn about the data-loss.Related forum thread:
I didn't test all the changes but these packets seem to work fine:
IS_NCN,IS_NPL,IS_CPR,IS_TOC,IS_BTN. I used both unicode strings and raw bytes in my code; they worked fine together.