7.7.1 breaks Edit > Line Operations > Sort Lines As Integers Ascending for CIDR IPv4



  • Worked prior to the recent 7.7.1 update. Now appears to only work for a single decimal dot (the first parsed?) and not thereafter which breaks the sorting of CIDR IPv4 lists. Previously the sort had been wholly reliable and blindingly fast - even with very large sets of data.

    [ small sample of ‘sorted’ output]
    13.228.0.0/15 REACH
    13.250.0.0/15 Amazon EC2 SIN prefix source:RADB
    13.228.0.0/15 Amazon EC2 SIN prefix source:RADB
    15.177.48.0/21 Amazon ROUTE53
    18.140.0.0/15 Amazon EC2 SIN prefix source:RADB
    18.138.0.0/15 Amazon EC2 SIN prefix source:RADB
    18.136.0.0/16 Amazon EC2 SIN prefix source:RADB
    18.142.0.0/15 Amazon EC2 SIN prefix source:RADB
    35.154.0.0/16 Amazon EC2 BOM prefix source:RADB
    43.250.192.0/24 Amazon Asia-Pacific Resources
    43.250.193.0/24 Amazon Asia-Pacific Resources
    43.250.193.0/24 Amazon SIN Prefix source:RADB
    43.250.192.0/24 Amazon SIN prefix source:RADB

    Was my earlier successful use merely me making a feature of an old bug or has the latest update broken an established feature in some way? Oh and can/will it be fixed:-)



  • @piranpiran

    There might be a hint in the 7.7.1 change log:

    Notepad++ v7.7.1 enhancements & bug-fixes:

    Fix drag and drop tab regression: dragging tab is switched to another tab issue.
    Fix an input regression: Cyrillic, Turkish and other languages input issue in ANSI mode.
    Fix an ASP regression: VB looses syntax highlighting in ASP document.
    Fix Reload dialog displaying issue during File Monitoring.
    Fix “unhide lines” markers disappears issue.
    Fix Plugin menu is not localized issue if no plugin installed.
    Add “Copy File Name” command in context menu of “Folder as Workspace”.

    Fix crash while sorting lines with numbers longer than 20 digits.

    Enable Scintilla Virtual Space Option change from macro.
    Add Tcl, CMake and AutoIt keywords; add Python and SQL new syntax highlighting cathegories.

    Sometimes fixes break other things. Just sayin.



  • @piranpiran, Welcome to the Notepad++ Community.

    It does appear that it’s a change in behavior, and @Alan-Kilborn is probably right about the root cause for the error.

    can/will it be fixed:-)

    The best way to get it fixed: have “before” data*, have after data for v7.7, and the wrong after data for v7.7.1, and follow the instructions in the FAQ for posting a bug report to the github repo: https://notepad-plus-plus.org/community/topic/15741/faq-desk-feature-request-or-bug-report .

    edit: * = where “before”-data means the unsorted file; sorry if I wasn’t clear.



  • @piranpiran said:

    merely me making a feature of an old bug

    I think this is likely the case. It’s called an “…As integers” sort, and expecting it to act on any character beyond the rightmost valid integer character is probably wishful thinking. Especially now since it has been changed to deal with a different bug.



  • I did read the change notes before but discounted it as IPv4 octets are numbers shorter than 20 digits. Previously the sort worked for all the dots in the octets. Now it only seems to look at the first dot. In the hope that it is a new bug I will wade through the indicated FAQ and file a bug.



  • @piranpiran , looking deeper at your “sorted” sample, I don’t understand the ordering of it. Can you explain it?



  • @piranpiran, I think you need to re-look into this again, there are four different options available…

    1. sort with choreographically lexicographically
    2. Sort with integer
    3. Sort with decimal (,)
    4. Sort with decimal (.)

    In your case may be 1st option is more suitable.



  • @Alan-Kilborn said:

    looking deeper at your “sorted” sample, I don’t understand the ordering of it. Can you explain it?

    Oh, wait…you are giving what 7.7.1 outputs, not what you want. I wish you’d given both (I’m too lazy to try an earlier version…for a problem specific to you). :)

    Edit: No, that doesn’t make sense either!!! I’m CONFUSED. :(



  • The unordered ASN data list is REALLY BIG. Whittled down logically with the Sort With Integer option. Manually cutting out all the unwanted stuff below the numbers leaves (prior to 7.7.1) leaves a perfectly ordered/sorted IPv4 CIDR.

    Bug filed…
    https://github.com/notepad-plus-plus/notepad-plus-plus/issues/5839#issue-461105546



  • @SinghRajenM
    See comment(s) in the bug site… there doesn’t seem to be an asinine timeout dragon thereabouts.



  • @piranpiran

    What’s “asinine” are the spammers…which is what the “timeout dragon” was put in place to counteract. Regardless, you have a reputation of 2+ now, so the dragon shouldn’t bother you further.

    @PeterJones said:

    The best way to get it fixed: have “before” data*, have after data for v7.7, and the wrong after data for v7.7.1

    From looking at the created issue…apparently it was desired to take a sub-optimal route to “fixing”.

    ;)

    Also, you should add a link to this thread from the issue.



  • @piranpiran said:

    unordered ASN data list is REALLY BIG

    So what? The subset of data you showed us above (which is a measely 13 lines) does show the bug; that would have been sufficient. You just needed three copies: one in completely unsorted, one in v7.7 sorted, and one in v7.7.1 wrongly-sorted; Alan wished (after the fact) for you to have originally posted all three of those here, which would have made your question easier to understand; and I explicitly suggested you include that in the official bug report, which you apparently ignored.

    As it is, without even a link to this thread, there’s no reason for anyone there to believe that there’s a problem, because in the issue page, you don’t show any evidence of the issue, or a data set that will reproduce it, and your description of the issue is not sufficient to reproduce it. It boggles me that someone would go to more effort here to ask for help then when they do the official issue reporting, where something can be done about it.

    @Alan-Kilborn:

    Oh, wait…you are giving what 7.7.1 outputs, not what you want. I wish you’d given both (I’m too lazy to try an earlier version…for a problem specific to you). :)
    Edit: No, that doesn’t make sense either!!!

    Once I saw that the posted data was partially sorted – ie, sorted by the first octet, but didn’t sort on the second octet or beyond – and once I confirmed that if I threw that partially-sorted data into my 7.7, it finished sorting by the additional octets (which was the goal, from what I understood), I just assumed that randomly-ordered data in v7.7.1 would sort to the order that was originally posted; I haven’t confirmed that yet myself. (I haven’t yet taken the opportunity to download a copy of v7.7.1… I guess I’ll have to do that at some point.)



  • @Alan-Kilborn said:

    you should add a link to this thread from the issue.

    Oh, good, looks like it just happened. Thank you, @piranpiran : I had been boggled by your more recent posts there and here, and was starting to be disappointed, but that disappointment is fading now. Hopefully, you’ll take to heart the comments about showing all three sets of data in the issue, too.



  • @Alan-Kilborn
    Thank you for that helpful consideration.

    @PeterJones
    The before data is HUGE. Providing it is likely to cause confusion… I do not see npp’s lead programmer being confused with my description …should a fix be on the repair roadmap. Link to the (huge) raw ASN file:
    https://www.robtex.com/as/AS38895.html



  • @piranpiran said:

    The before data is HUGE. Providing it is likely to cause confusion…

    No, valid before data is a completely-unsorted version of the 13 lines you’ve already pasted – if necessary, just manually cut a few lines and move them around. That’s not huge, that’s 13 lines.



  • @piranpiran

    In computer science, when reporting bugs, it is customary to reduce a large dataset down to a sample that is just big enough to fully illustrate an issue. That’s all that was meant. Ideally, you should take a subset of the huge data and show it the 3 ways requested.



  • @PeterJones said:

    Hopefully, you’ll take to heart the comments about showing all three sets of data in the issue, too.

    Programmers tend to like short & sweet - avoids the dreaded TL;DR :-)





  • @piranpiran said:

    Programmers tend to like short & sweet - avoids the dreaded TL;DR :-)

    In what world is 13 lines of data TL;DR?

    Unsorted:

    13.228.0.0/15 REACH
    15.177.48.0/21 Amazon ROUTE53
    18.140.0.0/15 Amazon EC2 SIN prefix source:RADB
    35.154.0.0/16 Amazon EC2 BOM prefix source:RADB
    43.250.192.0/24 Amazon Asia-Pacific Resources
    13.228.0.0/15 Amazon EC2 SIN prefix source:RADB
    18.138.0.0/15 Amazon EC2 SIN prefix source:RADB
    18.142.0.0/15 Amazon EC2 SIN prefix source:RADB
    43.250.193.0/24 Amazon Asia-Pacific Resources
    13.250.0.0/15 Amazon EC2 SIN prefix source:RADB
    43.250.193.0/24 Amazon SIN Prefix source:RADB
    18.136.0.0/16 Amazon EC2 SIN prefix source:RADB
    43.250.192.0/24 Amazon SIN prefix source:RADB
    

    Sorted as integers in v7.7 (desired behavior)

    13.228.0.0/15 Amazon EC2 SIN prefix source:RADB
    13.228.0.0/15 REACH
    13.250.0.0/15 Amazon EC2 SIN prefix source:RADB
    15.177.48.0/21 Amazon ROUTE53
    18.136.0.0/16 Amazon EC2 SIN prefix source:RADB         HERE in v7.7, 136 came before 138, as desired
    18.138.0.0/15 Amazon EC2 SIN prefix source:RADB
    18.140.0.0/15 Amazon EC2 SIN prefix source:RADB
    18.142.0.0/15 Amazon EC2 SIN prefix source:RADB
    35.154.0.0/16 Amazon EC2 BOM prefix source:RADB
    43.250.192.0/24 Amazon Asia-Pacific Resources
    43.250.192.0/24 Amazon SIN prefix source:RADB
    43.250.193.0/24 Amazon Asia-Pacific Resources
    43.250.193.0/24 Amazon SIN Prefix source:RADB
    

    Sorted as inters in v7.7.1 (unwanted behavior)

    13.228.0.0/15 REACH
    13.228.0.0/15 Amazon EC2 SIN prefix source:RADB
    13.250.0.0/15 Amazon EC2 SIN prefix source:RADB
    15.177.48.0/21 Amazon ROUTE53
    18.140.0.0/15 Amazon EC2 SIN prefix source:RADB
    18.138.0.0/15 Amazon EC2 SIN prefix source:RADB
    18.142.0.0/15 Amazon EC2 SIN prefix source:RADB
    18.136.0.0/16 Amazon EC2 SIN prefix source:RADB		THIS ONE IS SORTED WRONG IN v7.7.1
    35.154.0.0/16 Amazon EC2 BOM prefix source:RADB
    43.250.192.0/24 Amazon Asia-Pacific Resources
    43.250.193.0/24 Amazon Asia-Pacific Resources
    43.250.193.0/24 Amazon SIN Prefix source:RADB
    43.250.192.0/24 Amazon SIN prefix source:RADB
    

    See how simple that was? A short set of data that completely shows the bug you are reporting.

    I even gave it to you for free. Hopefully, you’ll copy/paste this into the github issue.



  • @PeterJones

    • Unsorted para confuses me. It’s not what I do or did or even want to do.

    • Sorted as integers para is unavailable to me as I don’t have 7.7 any more.

    • Sorted as inters [sic] para is another way of putting my original premis. Its last line is incorrectly ordered.

    I chose to put my difficulty into words within my ‘heads-up’ bug report. Also I pointed out exactly where it’s going wrong too.

    Thank you for your opinion …which I fully respect. I need to go away and fix my own server’s anti-spammer dragon which I can see is currently tying up your outfit’s notifications delivery server. That whitelisting activity necessarily takes the server offline for a while so please don’t take offence.


Log in to reply