On Fri, 29 May 2026 07:16:24 GMT, Jaikiran Pai <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Can I please get a review of this doc and test-only change for >> https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8322256? >> >> The `java.util.zip.GZIPInputStream` has been in the JDK since Java 1.1. >> However, its specification hasn't been clear on how it behaves, especially >> when a `InputStream` consists of more than one GZIP member. >> >> The commit in this PR updates the specification of this class to match its >> current (long standing) implementation. >> >> A new jtreg test has been introduced to verify this behaviour. >> >> I'll draft a CSR shortly. >> >> --------- >> - [x] I confirm that I make this contribution in accordance with the >> [OpenJDK Interim AI Policy](https://openjdk.org/legal/ai). > > Jaikiran Pai has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a > merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes > brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains 29 additional > commits since the last revision: > > - simplify test > - update the method doc of read() method to no longer mention > InputStream.available() > - merge latest from master branch > - minor adjustment to class level javadoc > - further adjustments to class level javadoc > - merge latest from master branch > - fix copyright year on BasicGZIPInputStreamTest.java > - "or after" -> "or after them" > - Alan's review - remove use of implSpec from GZIPInputStream.read() > - merge latest from master branch > - ... and 19 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/a8ba1367...7f0c58b4 src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/zip/GZIPInputStream.java line 50: > 48: * This includes bytes that follow a member's trailer. If the additional > bytes following a > 49: * trailer do not constitute a GZIP member header, the stream is > considered to have reached > 50: * end-of-stream, and the read methods return {@code -1}. Whether or not > any additional bytes Reading this again, I think this sentence needs to be dropped, it may re-surface again when we get to deprecating the existing constructors. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/30925#discussion_r3323024405
