Fix UTF-32 BOM

[aSemy]

The UTF-32 BOM is 0000feff, not 0000ffff

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byte_order_mark#Byte-order_marks_by_encoding

Noticed by @JakeWharton in kotlinlang Slack

See also: square/wire#2935

[swankjesse]

ResponseBodyJvmTest > stringBomUtf32Le() FAILED
    org.opentest4j.AssertionFailedError: expected:<"[hello]"> but was:<"[hello]">
        at app//okhttp3.ResponseBodyJvmTest.stringBomUtf32Le(ResponseBodyJvmTest.kt:96)

ResponseBodyJvmTest > readerBomUtf32Le() FAILED
    org.opentest4j.AssertionFailedError: expected:<"[hello]"> but was:<"[hello]">
        at app//okhttp3.ResponseBodyJvmTest.readerBomUtf32Le(ResponseBodyJvmTest.kt:178)

[JakeWharton]

Please use an explicit order. Arbitrarily sorting breaks the indices used on the matching side, which will also need changed to match the new order.

[Endeavour233]

ResponseBodyJvmTest > stringBomUtf32Le() FAILED
    org.opentest4j.AssertionFailedError: expected:<"[hello]"> but was:<"[hello]">
        at app//okhttp3.ResponseBodyJvmTest.stringBomUtf32Le(ResponseBodyJvmTest.kt:96)

ResponseBodyJvmTest > readerBomUtf32Le() FAILED
    org.opentest4j.AssertionFailedError: expected:<"[hello]"> but was:<"[hello]">
        at app//okhttp3.ResponseBodyJvmTest.readerBomUtf32Le(ResponseBodyJvmTest.kt:178)

This happens because UTF-16LE BOM(fffe) is a prefix of UTF-32LE BO(fffe0000) and UTF-32LE follows UTF-16LE in current UNICODE_BOMS, so UTF-32LE will be stripped when building trie for UNICODE_BOMS, consequently the "hello" string mistaken as UTF-16LE encoded. After raising the priority of UTF-32LE as below, it's fixed.

@aSemy

[aSemy]

Thank you for explaining, I see the problem and the explanation is clear. I fixed the same problem in my project by sorting the options by length, but that's only because I'm using TypedOptions. I don't really have time to fix it and the indices here.

Would someone else mind picking it up? I've enabled "Allow edits by maintainers", or feel free to open a new PR with this one as inspiration.

[Endeavour233]

Thank you for explaining, I see the problem and the explanation is clear. I fixed the same problem in my project by sorting the options by length, but that's only because I'm using TypedOptions. I don't really have time to fix it and the indices here.

Would someone else mind picking it up? I've enabled "Allow edits by maintainers", or feel free to open a new PR with this one as inspiration.

I'd like to open a new PR. Should I pick up the one in square/wire as well?

[aSemy]

I'd like to open a new PR. Should I pick up the one in square/wire as well?

Be my guest!

[aSemy]

Continued in #8407