Tests confusing about javascript HOT 2 CLOSED

Just to add to the discussion: I found it strange too but I simply ported it as there would be no way to confirm my port implemented properly the algorithm (as done by @alizain).

Anyway, the algorithm looks like a proof-of-concept. Binary implementation should be the "production" one, IMO.

I agree ULID must settle to fixed lengths to avoid your scenario.

from javascript.

I understand completely that the (original?) intent probably is/was "you may want to 'vary' with, for example 12 chars timestamp and 14 chars randomness"

@RobThree Yes that's true. I was trying to figure out the number of bits to allocate to the timestamp to ensure we don't run into a Y2K problem whilst keeping the entropy high enough 😛

Binary implementation should be the "production" one, IMO.

@imdario Agreed

Also the len argument to encodeRandom() and encodeTime() pop up in all other implementations; again: since these are fixed per the spec they don't make sense since they will/should never be called with any other argument.

@RobThree While I do understand, it makes me somewhat more comfortable in the correctness of the implementation if I can change the length and get the expected output, purely from a testability perspective.

That being said, I have moved the length declarations up top as suggested!

from javascript.