On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 17:40:24 GMT, Lance Andersen wrote:
> I don't have a preference whether we deal with input.jar separately, but
> these tests are not that complex so I do not see a risk if they are all
> converted at once, or done piece meal
Thanks, I'll extend the goal of this PR to remove
On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 17:22:14 GMT, Eirik Bjorsnos wrote:
> > One quick comment, if we are updating this test, we should look to get rid
> > of input.zip
>
> I started going down that road, but felt uneasy about the amount of unrelated
> changes in a single PR. I'd like to make efficient use of
On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 16:51:28 GMT, Lance Andersen wrote:
> One quick comment, if we are updating this test, we should look to get rid of
> input.zip
I started going down that road, but felt uneasy about the amount of unrelated
changes in a single PR. I'd like to make efficient use of reviewer
On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 20:28:20 GMT, Eirik Bjorsnos wrote:
> Please review this PR which suggests we rewrite the
> `../zip/ZipFile/ReadZip.java` test to JUnit.
>
> The current test is a single main method with a sequence of fairly unrelated
> scenarios. It would benefit from a rewrite to multiple
