Repository navigation
RUBY-3947 Use RubyFixnum.newFixnum instead of the constructor - #377
Merged
comandeo-mongo merged 2 commits intoOct 15, 2026
Merged
Conversation
comandeo-mongo
approved these changes
Oct 13, 2026
jamis
approved these changes
Oct 15, 2026
comandeo-mongo
added
the
bug
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Replace all seven direct
RubyFixnumconstructor calls inByteBuf.javawith
RubyFixnum.newFixnum(...).JRuby 10.1 made
RubyFixnumabstract as part of itsLongFixnum/ShortFixnumimplementation. Direct construction now raisesJava::JavaLang::InstantiationError. The existing factory returns theappropriate concrete implementation and is also available on older JRuby
versions.
Testing
BSON’s test suite passes on JRuby 10.0.5.0 and 10.1.2.0 with JDK 21.
References