Skip to content
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

Change ZipFile.ReadEntries to always look for the Zip64 central directory #363

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Aug 8, 2019

Conversation

Numpsy
Copy link
Contributor

@Numpsy Numpsy commented Jun 23, 2019

Possible change for #357 - in ZipFile.ReadEntries, always look for the zip64 central directory and use it if present, rather than only looking if we think we need it.
This change will still throw if it thinks the zip64 directory is required but can't find it (same logic there as before).

The change is sufficient to get the file from #356 loading successfully without causing any issues with the existing unit tests, but doesn't add any more tests as I don't have an appropriate test file to hand (the one linked from #356 being too large to use for a unit test)

I certify that I own, and have sufficient rights to contribute, all source code and related material intended to be compiled or integrated with the source code for the SharpZipLib open source product (the "Contribution"). My Contribution is licensed under the MIT License.

Copy link
Member

@piksel piksel left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good!

@piksel
Copy link
Member

piksel commented Jun 24, 2019

I know how to manually create a corrupt archive, so I will be adding a test

@piksel
Copy link
Member

piksel commented Jul 26, 2019

Finally got the test working :D

@piksel piksel merged commit ffe5115 into icsharpcode:master Aug 8, 2019
@Numpsy Numpsy deleted the rw/357 branch August 8, 2019 13:07
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants