Currently if a FieldBitLength attribute is applied which indicates <8
bits of data for a field, but it is defined of a type >=8 bits, it is
possible to assign it a value which won't fit in the assigned bit length.
This results in it overflowing to adjacent fields (only upwards in the
byte). This can however cause 'corruption' in other fields.
Added:
bit masking on the BoundedStream 'sub-byte' writes
new test case to specifically check for this
alteration to existing test case which appeared to expect this
behaviour. Perhaps this previous behaviour was desirable, although I
couldn't see logic that would 'expand' a childs field bit length based
upon a parents field bit length (so perhaps an error in the original
test case?)
Currently if a FieldBitLength attribute is applied which indicates <8 bits of data for a field, but it is defined of a type >=8 bits, it is possible to assign it a value which won't fit in the assigned bit length. This results in it overflowing to adjacent fields (only upwards in the byte). This can however cause 'corruption' in other fields.
Added:
Fixes #209
Signed-off-by: Bevan Weiss bevan.weiss@gmail.com