-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6.1k
8336844: ZipConstants64 defines duplicate constants EXTID_ZIP64 and ZIP64_EXTID #20264
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
👋 Welcome back cushon! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into |
@cushon This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks. ℹ️ This project also has non-automated pre-integration requirements. Please see the file CONTRIBUTING.md for details. After integration, the commit message for the final commit will be:
You can use pull request commands such as /summary, /contributor and /issue to adjust it as needed. At the time when this comment was updated there had been 4 new commits pushed to the
Please see this link for an up-to-date comparison between the source branch of this pull request and the ➡️ To integrate this PR with the above commit message to the |
Webrevs
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hello Liam, the changes look fine to me. Choosing EXTID_ZIP64
constant in preference of the other seems OK too, since that constant is more closer in code location with the other extra field header ids.
Some of these files require a copyright year update. Please update those before integrating.
I updated the copyright dates. Thanks for the review! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The changes look good to me. Although a trivial change, it would be good to wait for Lance to review this before integrating.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks OK to me.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The change looks fine.
/integrate |
Going to push as commit 8438c58.
Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts. |
This change deduplicates constants in ZipConstants64 for the Zip64 Extended Information Extra Field Header ID (see APPNOTE.TXT 4.5.3).
I think there are arguments for consolidating on either
EXTID_ZIP64
orZIP64_EXTID
. The PR currently consolidates onEXTID_ZIP64
,ZIP64_EXTID
is also an option if there's a preference for that.I noticed this while working on a zip64 bug in JDK-8328995, I was reviewing places that handled zip64 extra fields and initially missed some because I was only looking at one of the constants.
Progress
Issue
Reviewers
Reviewing
Using
git
Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/20264/head:pull/20264
$ git checkout pull/20264
Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/20264
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/20264/head
Using Skara CLI tools
Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 20264
View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 20264
Using diff file
Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/20264.diff
Webrev
Link to Webrev Comment