On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 11:29:55 GMT, Jose Pereda <jper...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> This is a different type of a problem, that imho should be addressed as >> well, but in a separate issue which also contains a test strategy. This is >> something that requires a hash-based solution, but it is something that >> needs to be done with great care, so I personally wouldn't rush this into >> this PR (as it might cause criticial regression if not done correctly). > > Agree to do it separately, but in any case, if there was already a file at > the cache directory, its checksum is verified, and in case it is not the > same, the file is removed from the cache, before it is copied again. > Does this cover the possible scenarios you are referring to? I agree with Johan and Jose: This should be fixed in a separate issue. @jperedadnr can you file a follow-up bug to investigate? ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1188#discussion_r1283084195
