On Sun, May 08, 2022 at 05:33:24PM +0200, Michael Storz wrote: > Am 2022-05-08 06:43, schrieb bugzilla-dae...@spamassassin.apache.org: > > https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7987 > > > > --- Comment #4 from Henrik Krohns <apa...@hege.li> --- > > I mostly agree with everything, great to have extra eyeballs. Can you > > comment > > if my previous list comment and Revision 1900667 additions cleared any > > things > > up for you and changes anything? > > > > Unfortunately not, I'm still struggling to understand the various aspects of > processing. However, I understand, that a call of rule_ready for a sync rule > makes sense. It does not need a call to rule_pending in this case. > > Example for a problem: a rule_pending must be followed by a rule_ready or a > got_hit. But how a got_hit should work instead of a rule_ready is a mystery > to me. In sub do_meta_tests the query whether a rule dependency exists is > defined as:
I noticed that got_hit doesn't do everything that it can. But I also found many other cases that need fixing and better testing. Spent 8 hours today trying different things and planning how to do things, trying to make bgsend automatically mark things ready is hard, as it's so complex in itself.. this is going to take few days..
