Contextful validity errors, null-byte specs fix

[diamondburned]

This pull request adds meaningful errors while decoding as well as proper null-byte encoding.

Benchmarks

New is the pull request and old is upstream/main. Test performed on a laptop with an Intel Core i5-8250U.

name          old time/op    new time/op    delta
Encode-8         269ns ±14%     269ns ±21%     ~     (p=1.000 n=8+8)
EncodeTo-8      1.78µs ±13%    1.70µs ± 9%     ~     (p=0.266 n=8+8)
Decode-8        2.74µs ±12%    3.40µs ± 6%  +24.26%  (p=0.000 n=8+8) <-- more is slower
DecodeFrom-8    3.38µs ±16%    4.69µs ± 7%  +38.76%  (p=0.000 n=8+8) <-- more is slower

name          old speed      new speed      delta
Encode-8      44.8MB/s ±15%  45.2MB/s ±19%     ~     (p=1.000 n=8+8)
EncodeTo-8     185MB/s ±14%   193MB/s ± 9%     ~     (p=0.279 n=8+8)
Decode-8       120MB/s ±11%    96MB/s ± 6%  -19.68%  (p=0.000 n=8+8) <-- less is slower
DecodeFrom-8  97.5MB/s ±14%  69.9MB/s ± 7%  -28.33%  (p=0.000 n=8+8) <-- less is slower

The performance loss in DecodeFrom is probably scanner.Text() having to allocate a new string for each chunk. The speed is still fairly decent, though.

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #9 (20a958c) into main (2b0e3cd) will decrease coverage by 6.88%.
The diff coverage is 50.94%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main       #9      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   66.01%   59.13%   -6.89%     
==========================================
  Files           1        1              
  Lines         103      115      +12     
==========================================
  Hits           68       68              
- Misses         27       36       +9     
- Partials        8       11       +3     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
bottom/bottom.go	59.13% <50.94%> (-6.89%)	⬇️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 2b0e3cd...20a958c. Read the comment docs.

[nihaals]

Based on GitHub Actions benchmarks, BenchmarkDecodeFrom is the main benchmark affected, the rest looks like random variance.

It would be nice to have some tests for invalid inputs, maybe even checking the position (although that might be overkill).

[diamondburned]

maybe even checking the position

type InvalidRuneError rune can be feasibly changed to something else to add this, for example

type InvalidRuneError struct {
    Rune     rune
    Position int
}

[nihaals]

type InvalidRuneError rune can be feasibly changed to something else to add this, for example

type InvalidRuneError struct {
    Rune     rune
    Position int
}

I think this change would almost exclusively be used for tests, so I'm not too sure. I was originally thinking parsing the error string for the reported position and checking if it matches what is expected (hence me calling it overkill).

[nihaals]

I think we should add the position to InvalidRuneError and add tests for invalid inputs, also checking the position to ensure it matches.

[diamondburned]

add tests for invalid inputs

Do you have a set of reference invalid inputs?

[nihaals]

add tests for invalid inputs

Do you have a set of reference invalid inputs?

A few examples:

1. Decode: 💖✨✨✨,,,,👉👈test💖💖,👉👈❤️👉👈💖💖✨🥺👉👈💖💖✨🥺,👉👈 (non-bottom characters)
2. Decode: 💖✨✨✨,,,,👉test👈💖💖,👉👈❤️👉👈💖💖✨🥺👉👈💖💖✨🥺,👉👈 (non-bottom characters)
3. Decode: 💖✨✨✨,,,,👉💖👈💖💖,👉👈❤️👉👈💖💖✨🥺👉👈💖💖✨🥺,👉👈 (character in byte separator)
4. Decode: 💖✨✨✨,,,,👉test👈💖💖,👉👈❤️👉👈💖💖✨🥺👉👈💖💖✨🥺,👉👈 (character in byte separator)
5. Decode: 💖✨✨✨,,,,👉👈,💖💖👉👈❤️👉👈💖💖✨🥺👉👈💖💖✨🥺,👉👈 (characters not in order)
6. Decode: 💖✨✨✨,,,,👉👈💖💖,👉👈❤️💖💖✨🥺👉👈💖💖✨🥺,👉👈 (missing byte separator after null byte)