CLDSRV-898: CompleteMultipartUpload checksums #6166
Conversation
Hello leif-scality,My role is to assist you with the merge of this Available options
Available commands
Status report is not available. |
Incorrect fix versionThe
Considering where you are trying to merge, I ignored possible hotfix versions and I expected to find:
Please check the |
3a4f7e2 to
223fb7f
Compare
|
|
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files
... and 4 files with indirect coverage changes @@ Coverage Diff @@
## development/9.4 #6166 +/- ##
===================================================
+ Coverage 85.26% 85.34% +0.07%
===================================================
Files 207 208 +1
Lines 13794 14039 +245
===================================================
+ Hits 11762 11982 +220
- Misses 2032 2057 +25
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
223fb7f to
8095101
Compare
|
8095101 to
9e8bcea
Compare
|
9e8bcea to
054e5ef
Compare
|
773ff64 to
342c2d5
Compare
|
LGTM — solid implementation of FULL_OBJECT and COMPOSITE checksum computation for CompleteMultipartUpload, with thorough test coverage across all algorithm/type combinations. The CRC combine implementation correctly ports the zlib matrix trick, and the per-part validation logic matches AWS behavior (including the subtle default-MPU rejection). Two minor observations posted inline: |
342c2d5 to
f96684d
Compare
|
LGTM — solid implementation of MPU final-object checksums (FULL_OBJECT via CRC linearization, COMPOSITE via digest concatenation) with thorough test coverage across all algorithm/type combinations. One minor log-level concern flagged inline. |
f96684d to
e6c564b
Compare
|
…ing in part metadata
e6c564b to
a9db936
Compare
|
LGTM |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.