Consider AES overhead when testing encrypted folder entries #503
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
refs my last comment in #317 - TestArchive doesn't seem to consider AES encryption when testing encrypted directory entries (it always uses
ZipConstants.CryptoHeaderSize
).This is just a simple change to use the newly added
EncryptionOverheadSize
instead.I'm not sure what the '+ 2' is allowing for? (empty compressed data overhead? I'm not sure what the comment in the non-encrypted case about not knowing the true size refers to, when directories don't really have a size?)
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.