On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 14:09:35 GMT, Eirik Bjørsnøs <eir...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Please review this PR which suggests we speed up the `Zip64SizeTest` using a >> small-sized ZIP64 ZIP file specifically created to reproduce the issue being >> tested. >> >> The disk space requirement of this test is known to cause problems in some >> builds, see [JDK-8259866](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8259866) >> >> By using a sparse file, we reduce consumed disk space from 5GB to 266 bytes >> and also reduce the runtime from ~35 seconds to ~1 seconds on my Macbook Pro. >> >> The PR also fixes the `@summary` tag, which seems to have been copied from >> an unrelated test. > > Eirik Bjørsnøs 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 13 additional > commits since the last revision: > > - Use a small ZIP64 file to reproduce the issue. Convert test to JUnit > - Update copyright year for 2024 > - Use ENTRY instead of FILE when refering to names and sizes of file entries > in the ZIP file > - Merge branch 'master' into zip64-size-test-sparse > - Merge branch 'master' into zip64-size-test-sparse > - Sparse files must be created explicitly on NTFS > - Merge branch 'master' into zip64-size-test-sparse > - Merge branch 'master' into zip64-size-test-sparse > - Make test method public > - Add a missing "when" in Javadocs for SparseOutputStream > - ... and 3 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/adc5f068...41b2ba5e Reopening this PR which was closed without review in May 2023. Initially, this PR suggested to use a sparse file when creating the large ZIP file. After consideration, I have found it simpler to instead doctor a small-sized ZIP64-entry with the specific structure required to trigger the regression being tested. I have verified that the test actually fails if `ZipFile` is updated to call `ZipEntry.setExtra0` with `isLoc: true`, meaning it still catches the regression. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/12948#issuecomment-1934202567
