Some inconvenience with SHA3 checksums

[MarcinW]

When using "File -> Create Checksum File" functionality for a file with name "file", by default we get the following output file names:

CRC32(SFV) -> file.sfv
MD5 -> file.md5
SHA1 -> file.sha
SHA224 -> file.sha224
SHA256 -> file.sha256
SHA384 -> file.sha384
SHA512 -> file.sha512

but:

SHA3_224 -> file.sha3
SHA3_256 -> file.sha3
SHA3_384 -> file.sha3
SHA3_512 -> file.sha3


It's probably unintentional, because it's an inconvenience (and inconsistency): when creating more than one checksum file from SHA3_* group, output file names are same, so "overwrite?" dialog appears. It would be better:

SHA3_224 -> file.sha3_224
SHA3_256 -> file.sha3_256
SHA3_384 -> file.sha3_384
SHA3_512 -> file.sha3_512


Regards

[Ovg]

and My "2 cents" :

In TC 9.0 beta 4 there isn't "_" between sha3 and 224: http://rgho.st/6QHWLG52H/image.png

[petermad]

2Ovg

Well here there is a "_" in "sha3_224" in the dialog - and the file produced is file.sha3 as MarcinW points out.

http://madsenworld.dk/tcmd/sha3.png - this is with language set to internal English.

EDIT - From your screenshot, I noticed that you use another font, so I tried setting my dialog box fond to Times New Roman 11pt - and then there is ony an underscore "_" at SHA3_512 - http://madsenworld.dk/tcmd/sha3Times.png

So there is definately a bug concerning showing the underscore.

[Ovg]

dialog box font to Times New Roman 11pt

With this settings x86 version also is affected ...

[ghisler(Author)]

This is intentional. In the wild, both variants are used, but .sha3 seems to be more common - the length of the hash can already be seen from the file contents, but sha2-256 and sha3-256 cannot be distinguished by the contents only.

[petermad]

2ghisler(Author)

But what about the missing underscores in the dialog (not in the file name) with certain font setteings...? See screenshots above.

[ghisler(Author)]

Not confirmed here - but I have moved the strings 1 pixel away from each other now, maybe it helps...

[petermad]

I can no longer reproduce missing underscores after "SHA3" when using Times New Roman 11pt - so apparantly that problem is fixed in TC9b5

Let's hear what Ovg says, with his font/DPI setting?

[Ovg]

Well, now for me working in:

beta 5 x86 up to Times New Roman 12 pt
beta 5 x64 up to Times New Roman 11 pt

My usual setting are Times New Roman 9 pt, DPI 143%, my screen resolution is 1920 x 1200 / 24" monitor

Thus, now for me working fine here.

Setting higher DPI or higher font size leads to missing underscores in some/all SHA3 strings[/b]