tests: remove Big Endian–specific compressed size assertion

[yasiribmcon]

The test previously hardcoded an expected compressed size for BIG_ENDIAN platforms. With recent changes to Snappy’s compression logic, the output size is now identical on both little-endian and big-endian systems, making the endianness-specific assertion invalid.

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @yasiribmcon, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request updates a test case within SnappyOutputStreamTest.java to reflect changes in Snappy's compression behavior. The modification removes a conditional assertion that was previously specific to Big Endian platforms, as the compressed data size is now uniform regardless of the system's endianness. This ensures the test accurately validates the compression quality under the current Snappy implementation.

Highlights

• Test Refinement: Removed a Big Endian-specific compressed size assertion in SnappyOutputStreamTest.java because recent changes to Snappy's compression logic have made the output size consistent across different endianness systems, rendering the previous assertion invalid.

🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console.

Changelog

• src/test/java/org/xerial/snappy/SnappyOutputStreamTest.java
  • Removed the if (ByteOrder.nativeOrder() == ByteOrder.BIG_ENDIAN) block that asserted a specific compressed data length for Big Endian systems.

Activity

• No specific activity (comments, reviews, or progress updates) has been recorded for this pull request yet.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request correctly removes a now-obsolete assertion for Big Endian platforms in the test suite, reflecting recent updates to Snappy's compression logic. My review includes one suggestion to improve the robustness of a string comparison in the modified test code.

[gemini-code-assist]

In Java, you should use the .equals() method for string comparison instead of ==. The == operator checks for reference equality (whether they are the same object), not value equality (whether they have the same character sequence). While this might work in some cases due to string interning, it's not a reliable practice and can lead to unexpected behavior. Using .equals() is safer and more explicit.

Suggested change

	if(OSInfo.getArchName() == "aarch64")
	if("aarch64".equals(OSInfo.getArchName()))