This reflects a change in esorex 3.11. It seems that the cpl_dfs_update_product_header() function now behaves a bit differently and may return an erro (see #19).
To keep backward compatibility, we still use the old function if cpl_dfs_sign_products() is not available (before CPL version 6.5).
I hope that this fixes #19. @saimn could you be so kind and test this?
Coverage decreased (-1.07%) to 77.888% when pulling e06ea24258efe6709b7b9fb37609efafb94310d3 on use_dfs_sign_products into c636e12c61ed0f191fd244b8ea118f9d423ac78c on master.
Coverage decreased (-1.07%) to 77.888% when pulling e06ea24258efe6709b7b9fb37609efafb94310d3 on use_dfs_sign_products into c636e12c61ed0f191fd244b8ea118f9d423ac78c on master.
Coverage decreased (-1.07%) to 77.888% when pulling e06ea24258efe6709b7b9fb37609efafb94310d3 on use_dfs_sign_products into c636e12c61ed0f191fd244b8ea118f9d423ac78c on master.
This reflects a change in esorex 3.11. It seems that the
cpl_dfs_update_product_header()
function now behaves a bit differently and may return an erro (see #19).To keep backward compatibility, we still use the old function if
cpl_dfs_sign_products()
is not available (before CPL version 6.5).I hope that this fixes #19. @saimn could you be so kind and test this?