Yup, agreed, and based on that, here's my +1, binding.
Thanks and kudos for the quick investigation!
CheersBruno
From: Stefan Bodewig <[email protected]>
To: Commons Developers List <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, 12 May 2017 9:44 PM
Subject: Re: [compress] ZIP Integration Tests (was Re: [VOTE] Release Compress
1.14 Based on RC1)
On 2017-05-12, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On 2017-05-12, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> On 2017-05-12, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>>> I'll run the tests myself to see what happens here.
>> $ mvn test
>> -Dtest=Zip64SupportIT#writeSmallStoredEntryKnownSizeToFileModeAlways
>> -Prun-zipit
>> ...
>> Failed tests:
>>
>>Zip64SupportIT.writeSmallStoredEntryKnownSizeToFileModeAlways:1618->withTemporaryArchive:2323
>> arrays first differed at element [4]; expected:<64> but was:<-1>
>> Tests run: 1, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
>> I'll try to understand what's going on.
> First data point, it has been failing since 1.11, it passes with 1.10.
> I'll wade through the changes we've made to ZipArchiveOutputStream, at
> first glance the test verifies what I'd expect the archive to contain.
https://github.com/apache/commons-compress/pull/10
we forgot to adapt the test, will do so now.
Given the test was wrong, not the implementation I think I don't need to
cancel the vote.
Stefan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
