testzip() still fails for big files. This patch implements reading small buffers. Also corrected main() where the return value of testzip() is ignored, hiding errors in zipfiles.

Any progress report on this issue, please?

This sort of change definitely needs to be made to avoid reading huge
files into memory for testzip().  I've attached a modified patch as
zipfile_testzip_amcintyre.diff; it didn't seem appropriate to have a
module-level variable for the size of the test read, and I made a few
other minor tweaks.

It would appear that the change to testzip has already been made:

http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-checkins/2008-August/072892.html
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000-checkins/2008-August/004310.html

I can add some tests, though.  I'll submit another patch shortly.

Attached is a patch that makes the zipfile module check the result of
testzip when run as __main__ as well as in test_zipfile.py, and adds
some tests in test_zipfile64.py.  The changes to test_zipfile64.py
increased its runtime from ~671 sec to ~1060 sec on my machine; I'm not
sure if that's too much.

Tried the patch against 2.7 and got "RuntimeError: Attempt to read ZIP archive that was already closed" for TestsWithSourceFile test_deflated and test_stored.  The patch needs updating for py3k.

Ok, I'll see if I can update that in the next week or so.

Here's an updated patch against the py3k trunk (testzip-patch3.diff) that passes all tests (including test_zipfile64) on Linux on a 64-bit machine.

I can backport this to 2.x, but I'll wait until somebody indicates a need for it before I spend any time on it.

I re-checked testzip-patch3.diff since some time has passed since I last commented on it, and it still seems to work ok (the small test_zipfile.py block failed to apply, but that's easy enough to do manually).  Passes full test run, test_zipfile64.py, etc., on Linux x86_64.

If there is something about the patch that still needs to be addressed before it can be committed, let me know and I'll see what I can do.

I'd be glad to do some code reviews or something in exchange for the time of somebody with commit rights. :-)  If anybody is interested in getting this change committed, please let me know and I'll check that the patch is still valid.  Thanks!

I'm not sure about new tests, but the changes in the docstring and old tests look necessary.

I added comments in Rietveld.