[BUG] Share Ratio goes negative!

Suggestions and discussion of future versions
Post Reply
bejelith
New User
New User
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 8:02 am

[BUG] Share Ratio goes negative!

Post by bejelith »

Deluge version 0.5
OS Linux 2.6.21.3
distro Debian etch
Python version 2.4.4

With hight rate of share ration (going over, more or less, 8.0) the counter became negative!!
markybob
Compulsive Poster
Compulsive Poster
Posts: 1230
Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 11:27 pm
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Contact:

Re: [BUG] Share Ratio goes negative!

Post by markybob »

heh, nice. at least it's an easy fix. thanks :)
bejelith
New User
New User
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 8:02 am

Re: [BUG] Share Ratio goes negative!

Post by bejelith »

I hope for u that all fixes will be simple like this! it's a very nice client... but i dont like python :P
Image
User avatar
zachtib
Leecher
Leecher
Posts: 97
Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 3:26 pm
Location: Louisville, KY
Contact:

Re: [BUG] Share Ratio goes negative!

Post by zachtib »

bejelith wrote:Deluge version 0.5
OS Linux 2.6.21.3
distro Debian etch
Python version 2.4.4

With hight rate of share ration (going over, more or less, 8.0) the counter became negative!!
this bug has been around for a long time

the problem is related to the upload passing the MAX_INT value and wrapping around

we need to fix it, if at all possible...
Former Deluge Developer
eternalsword
Member
Member
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 8:08 pm

Re: [BUG] Share Ratio goes negative!

Post by eternalsword »

I don't think anyone cares how many bytes are uploaded or downloaded, so maybe make it based on kilobytes instead. It's either that or use something bigger than an int.
markybob
Compulsive Poster
Compulsive Poster
Posts: 1230
Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 11:27 pm
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Contact:

Re: [BUG] Share Ratio goes negative!

Post by markybob »

eternalsword wrote:I don't think anyone cares how many bytes are uploaded or downloaded, so maybe make it based on kilobytes instead. It's either that or use something bigger than an int.
i think i just fixed this in svn rev 724. give it a shot and let me know
Post Reply