Add fixture for wrong digest algorithm

[pwinckles]

Fixture for invalid content digest algorithm

[zimeon]

I don't think E001 in the name is helpful -- whether a validator reports E001 will depend on what it does after understanding a disallowed md5 digest choice -- if it reports that as disallowed but then continues normally, I think all files are OK

[zimeon]

My validator reports all sorts of confusing errors because it rejects md5 and then carries on with sha512 as the default for other checks:

(py38) simeon@RottenApple fixtures> ../ocfl-validate.py 1.0/bad-objects/E025_E001_wrong_digest_algorithm/
[E025a] OCFL Object root inventory manifest block includes a digest (d2c79c8519af858fac2993c2373b5203) that doesn't have the correct form for the sha512 algorithm (see https://ocfl.io/1.0/spec/#E025)
[E025a] OCFL Object root inventory manifest block includes a digest (fccd3f96d461f495a3bef31dc1d28f01) that doesn't have the correct form for the sha512 algorithm (see https://ocfl.io/1.0/spec/#E025)
[E039] OCFL Object root inventory `digestAlgorithm` attribute not an allowed value (got 'md5') (see https://ocfl.io/1.0/spec/#E039)
[E050d] OCFL Object root inventory v1 version state block includes a bad digest (d2c79c8519af858fac2993c2373b5203) (see https://ocfl.io/1.0/spec/#E050)
[E050d] OCFL Object root inventory v1 version state block includes a bad digest (fccd3f96d461f495a3bef31dc1d28f01) (see https://ocfl.io/1.0/spec/#E050)
[E058a] OCFL Object root inventory is missing sidecar digest file at inventory.json.sha512 (see https://ocfl.io/1.0/spec/#E058)
INFO:ocfl.object:OCFL object at 1.0/bad-objects/E025_E001_wrong_digest_algorithm/ is INVALID

This isn't really helpful. Either the validator should short-circuit at finding a bad digestAlgorithm or else make other checks more about consistency given a disallowed algorithm.

[pwinckles]

My validator reports E001 for the unexpected inventory.json.md5 file. I am happy to remove the code from the fixture name, if you'd like.

[zimeon]

I think it would be best to remove E001 because E025 is the key code it is trying to elicit. I am wondering whether we should express a philosophy of bad fixture naming -- that the name will include an error codes that we expect a validator to give, it may give others depending upon approach

[pwinckles]

I removed the E001 code, and agree with your suggestion