On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 10:13:31 GMT, Eirik Bjorsnos <d...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> The scope of this PR has now expanded to removing uses of the `input.zip` and > `input.jar` files, updating any test using them to produce their own test > vectors, and convert affected tests to JUnit. > > I'm marking the PR ready for review again. Before looking too closely at the > code, it would be useful to discuss the following tests: > > * `Available.java`: This test has no jtreg header. I've added one and > converted the test. Is this worthwhile, or should we rather remove it? This could be moved into ReadZip. I do not believe we have a specific test and it is trivial > * `CopyJar.java`: The concern tested seems to have superior coverage in the > test `zip/CopyZipFile.java`. Should we retire `CopyJar.java` instead of > coverting it? Yes CopyZipFile already exercises Zipfile.ZipInputStream so it is safe to retire CopyJar (though CopyZipFile could use a junit conversion ;-) > * `DirEntry.java`: There is duplication between this test and > `ReadZip.readDirectoryEntry()`. Should we retire one of these? I believe you meant GetDirEntry.java not DirEntry.java? Having a test that specifically validates we can read META-INF is not a bad thing, but I suspect we have a test that already does that if not in the java/util/zip tests or java/util/jar tests. If not we should keep it but merge it as you suggest ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17038#issuecomment-1855690222
