I would like to use java.math.BigInteger in a nashorn / jss JavaScript.
By way of example, let's say I want to calculate Fibonacci sequence numbers. Numbers will need to remain exact, even if they become very large.
Working Java code looks like this:
public static BigInteger fibonacci(int n) {
BigInteger prev = new BigInteger("0");
if (n == 0) return prev;
BigInteger next = new BigInteger("1");
if (n == 1) return next;
BigInteger fib = null;
int i;
for (i = 1; i < n; i++) {
fib = prev.add(next);
prev = next;
next = fib;
}
return fib;
}
We can test with:
So far so good.
Equivalent JavaScript code below:
function fibonacci(n) {
var BigInteger = Java.type("java.math.BigInteger");
prev = new BigInteger("0");
if (n == 0) return prev;
next = new BigInteger("1");
if (n == 1) return next;
var i, fib = null;
for (i = 1; i < n; i++) {
fib = prev.add(next);
prev = next;
next = fib;
}
return fib;
}
Now we get:
Note that the value for 79 is one off - it's wrong.
I suspect the problem is that somewhere, the BigNumber values are re-interpreted as plain JavaScript Numbers. (by "somewhere" I suspect this already happens as the supposedly BigInteger is passed to the .add method)
For example, if I you do:
var BigInteger = Java.type("java.math.BigInteger");
print(new BigInteger("14472334024676221"));
The output is 14472334024676220
, not 14472334024676221
.
This happens even if I explicitly call .toString()
on the BigInteger object.
How do I get past this?
UPDATE: @Dici asked if I looked for a threshold. I did - I found:
var str, BigInteger = Java.type("java.math.BigInteger");
str = "9999999999999998";
print(str + ": " + new BigInteger(str));
str = "9999999999999999";
print(str + ": " + new BigInteger(str));
will output:
I'm not sure it it's a matter of "treshold", or of some particular numbers having inaccuracies though.
UPDATE 2:
This is now reported as a bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8146264 Bug report was done by a Oracle JDK/Nashorn developer so I guess it's the real thing. Keeping my fingers crossed.
Yes, this is an issue. A bug has been filed -> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8146264
JSType and few other places have "instanceof Number" check -- not sure if fixing JSType.toStringImpl alone will do. In any case, I've a workaround - not very pretty one - but a workaround nevertheless. You can call java.lang.Object.toString method on those objects thereby avoiding Nashorn's JSType string conversion code.
function fibonacci(n) {
var BigInteger = Java.type("java.math.BigInteger");
prev = new BigInteger("0");
if (n == 0) return prev;
next = new BigInteger("1");
if (n == 1) return next;
var i, fib = null;
for (i = 1; i < n; i++) {
fib = prev.add(next);
prev = next;
next = fib;
}
return fib;
}
function javaToString(obj) {
var javaToStringMethod = (new java.lang.Object()).toString;
var call = Function.prototype.call;
return call.call(javaToStringMethod, obj);
}
print(javaToString(fibonacci(77)))
print(javaToString(fibonacci(78)))
print(javaToString(fibonacci(79)))
var str, BigInteger = Java.type("java.math.BigInteger");
str = "9999999999999998";
print(str + ": " + javaToString(new BigInteger(str)));
str = "9999999999999999";
print(str + ": " + javaToString(new BigInteger(str)));