> The TestTooManyEntries test was originally added to validate that ZIP64 files 
> with CEN sizes exceeding what ZipFile  supports are rejected with a 
> ZipException. The test does this by creating a large ZIP file (several 
> gigabytes) with many enties. Because this is resource intensive, the test is 
> currently tagged as manual.  (See #6927)
> 
> It would be useful to have a test which asserts the CEN size enforcement, but 
> without the CPU, disk, memory and run time requirements of 
> TestTooManyEntries.  Such a fast test can run non-manual,  without the 
> @requires and manual tags as found in TestTooManyEntries.
> 
> This PR adds the EndOfCenValidation test which creates sparse test ZIPs where 
> the CEN is "inflated" such that is matches the size declared in the "End of 
> central directory" records.
> 
> While thee sparse files look large, they consume very little disk space on 
> file systems supporting sparse files:
> 
> 
> 16 -rw-r--r--  1   2147483702 Feb  6 18:54 bad-cen-offset.zip
> 16 -rw-r--r--  1   2147483703 Feb  6 18:54 cen-size-too-large.zip
>  8 -rw-r--r--  1          132 Feb  6 18:54 invalid-zen-size.zip
> ``` 
> 
> For good measure, two new test methods are added to excercise the remaining 
> ZipExceptions which ZipFile may throw during validation of the END record .

Eirik Bjorsnos has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional 
commit since the last revision:

  Consistently refer to the ultimate ZIP header/record like this: 'End of 
central directory record' (END header)

-------------

Changes:
  - all: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/12231/files
  - new: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/12231/files/1b253a14..a93248f0

Webrevs:
 - full: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=12231&range=03
 - incr: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=12231&range=02-03

  Stats: 13 lines in 1 file changed: 2 ins; 0 del; 11 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/12231.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/12231/head:pull/12231

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/12231

Reply via email to