CIQ 3.0 and ByteArray with Dictionary

What error are you receiving when attempting to put a ByteArray into a Dictionary? I don't see any reason this should fail.

In the current beta, I don't believe ByteArray can be saved to Application Storage, but this should be working prior to the official release of 3.0.

Thanks Brian for coming back.

There is no error at all - simply - dictionary remains empty after calling PUT method, that's why I believe - this is to be implemented.
If you'd need test-case - I can create one - but I believe, this is quite straight forward

Thanks for confirming that is should be handled by Storage - I'll assume in my project that it will work then.

So, I'm not able to reproduce a problem with the following simple testcase..

System.println("A");
var byte_array = []b;
System.println(byte_array);

System.println("B");
var dict = {};
System.println(dict);

System.println("C");
dict.put(1, byte_array);
System.println(dict);


I see the folloowing output..

A
[]
B
{}
C
{1=>[]}


I am seeing problems with using the byte array as a key in a dict, so I'll file something to add support for that. Unfortunately, I'm not able to reproduce the problem you describe, so this may be a case where a test case is warranted.

I'll create a test case and send it or post here - so it can be checked, just need a day or two.

Travis,

First of all - my apologies - seems that error is not related to dictionary. I did not realize that, as it was related to a different error causing problem with compilation.

Simplest case:

var x = 09;

causing compilation error:

BUILD: ERROR: For input string: "9"
BUILD: java.lang.NumberFormatException: For input string: "9"
BUILD: at java.lang.NumberFormatException.forInputString(Unknown Source)

And problem is valid whenever integer (passed to functions - which was exactly my case) is with 8 or 9 is leaded by 0

Sometimes I'm using leading 0 to have a clearer reading.

BTW

var x = 05;

would case no issue at all.

The 08 and 09 problem is because the leading zero is indicating Octal, and there is no 8 or 9 in octal.

Oh... :o