Repository navigation
Conversation
The carry that keeps three digits stopped at exponent 30, so 9.996e30 printed 10.00 Q.
ub3dqy
left a comment
ub3dqy
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Checked on Windows/Python 3.14.2. The existing 248 number tests pass. I found one zero-precision regression below; the suggested guard passes those tests plus 30 carry/precision checks.
Dima Mak / ub3dqy
| if round(abs(value), digits) >= 10 ** (exponent % 3 + 1): | ||
| exponent += 1 | ||
| if exponent >= 33: | ||
| return scientific(original, precision - 1) + unit |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
metric() already accepts precision=0 (including cases in the existing test table), but this new branch passes -1 to scientific():
humanize.metric(9.996e32, precision=0)
# ValueError: Format specifier missing precisionThe base commit returns 1000 Q for this input. Negative values and calls with a unit are affected too. Clamping the decimal precision here preserves zero precision when switching to scientific notation:
| return scientific(original, precision - 1) + unit | |
| return scientific(original, max(0, precision - 1)) + unit |
I checked positive/negative values, unit/no unit, and precisions 0, 1, 2, 3 and 6: all 30 additional cases pass with this guard, alongside the 248 existing number tests. Four of those cases raise on the current PR head.
Dima Mak / ub3dqy
Fixes #423
Changes proposed in this pull request:
metric(9.996e30)returned10.00 Q.9999is already10.0 k, not10.00 k. This is now10.0 Q.metric(9.996e31)returned100.0 Q. It is now100 Q.metric(9.996e32)returned1000 Q. There is no prefix past quetta, so this is now1.00 x 10³³.2.596e32is still260 QF. A negative value keeps its sign.pytest tests/test_number.py(248 passed).