Codecov Report

Merging #135 (10e99d1) into master (b22276d) will decrease coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master     #135      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     92.16%   92.16%   -0.01%     
  Complexity     1746     1746              
============================================
  Files            67       67              
  Lines          4659     4658       -1     
  Branches        748      748              
============================================
- Hits           4294     4293       -1     
  Misses          249      249              
  Partials        116      116              

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update b22276d...10e99d1. Read the comment docs.

Thank you for the quick response. It looks like builds on the master branch were already failing before my changes with the same error (see here for example). I was also able to reproduce it locally, both with and without my changes. Should I perhaps use another branch for the pull request?

Thank you for the quick response. It looks like builds on the master branch were already failing before my changes with the same error (see here for example). I was also able to reproduce it locally, both with and without my changes. Should I perhaps use another branch for the pull request?

Ah, thanks for looking into that @gpsfl . In that case we should fix the build and rebase this one to confirm these changes work as well. Feel free to wait until someone else steps in and fixes the build (or if you have spare time and feel like fixing that, pull requests are always welcome, though sometimes it can be tricky to figure out how to fix the build).

Bruno

I have implemented your suggestions and ran all unit tests successfully (using IntelliJ because the maven build is still broken).

Looks good. Can you rebase on master as I have fixed the build. Thanks.

Looks good. Can you rebase on master as I have fixed the build. Thanks.

I think @gpsfl found out that the build on master is broken - #135 (comment)

If so we may need to fix that so that this PR can be rebased and hopefully pass the build.

@kinow I just fixed the master build. It was due to animal-sniffer plugin complaining about a breaking API change in JDK 9+ with Buffer -> ByteBuffer as a return object from ByteBuffer operations. So a rebase should pick this up.

@kinow I just fixed the master build. It was due to animal-sniffer plugin complaining about a breaking API change in JDK 9+ with Buffer -> ByteBuffer as a return object from ByteBuffer operations. So a rebase should pick this up.

Thanks @aherbert !!!

I have rebased the changes from master

Looks fine. Can you squash all changes and prefix the commit message with CODEC-305: Fix byte-skipping in Base16 decoding. Thanks.

Looks fine. Can you squash all changes and prefix the commit message with CODEC-305: Fix byte-skipping in Base16 decoding. Thanks.

Done

Can you give any ETA on 1.16 release?

A 1.16 RC1 was trialled in January. However the release process was halted by an upstream dependency. I shall raise a question on the dev mailing list to see if the release manager has an update on this.

A 1.16 RC1 was trialled in January. However the release process was halted by an upstream dependency. I shall raise a question on the dev mailing list to see if the release manager has an update on this.

Any news regarding this?

The issue was related to upstream dependencies for managing the release. From the conversation on the mailing list:

"The current issue is that if a component does not use the
latest Apache RAT plugins, then it must do so in its POM. This could be
handled automatically if we released a new commons-parent."