There's literally over 1M tests in library/t/parsers.c; all of them are trivial to adjust to taste. Going forward, if you want to establish different types of parser behaviors, positively document those behaviors in the test suite, just like your predecessors did. Let's not make what happened with 2.17 a new status quo for your efforts.
-----Original Message----- From: Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2022 9:47 AM To: dev@httpd.apache.org Cc: Joe Schaefer <j...@sunstarsys.com> Subject: Re: [libapreq2] nits to pick about the patches to util.c over the past few years On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 7:44 PM Joe Schaefer <j...@sunstarsys.com> wrote: > > The reason this took so long for the community to diagnose isn't > because of ill-intent, but because it constituted a change of behavior in the > parser logic that wasn't surfaced in the Changes file. Please review r1905018 (with a CHANGES entry this time), along with r1905019 and r1905020 eventually. I'd suggest subscribing to c...@httpd.apache.org (if not already) and filter/mark subjects with "/httpd/apreq" if you don't want to miss anything. > > There is never going to come a time when there is any need for urgent > action on apreq- if it was easy to zero-day it, it would have happened > by now. Thus, take as much time as you need between releases to > communicate with the community about the nature of the deltas you intend to > ship with any GA release. You have my email address if you need to spitball > any patchsets you are toying with; it's a lot less painful to get my input in > advance than after the fact. That's not how it usually works though: r1895107 is dated "Nov 17, 2021", the [VOTE] for v2.17 started "Aug 18, 2022" and ended Aug 25, which left you 8 months to review the changes in trunk (and chime in..). Regards; Yann.
openpgp-digital-signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
