https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7982
--- Comment #18 from Henrik Krohns ---
(In reply to Sidney Markowitz from comment #17)
> Along those lines, I would really like it if someone could look at
> sql_based_welcomelist.t and figure out how to make it dependent on much
> fewer rul
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7982
--- Comment #17 from Sidney Markowitz ---
Answering in reverse order:
(In reply to Henrik Krohns from comment #16)
> we should stop SATest.pm from copying any cf from trunk/rules at all
That's something I was already considering while worki
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7982
--- Comment #16 from Henrik Krohns ---
And if you/we want to go with the 01_test_rules.cf route, when we should stop
SATest.pm from copying any cf from trunk/rules at all. Then is it's 100% clear
that tests only use something from 01_test_ru
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7982
--- Comment #15 from Henrik Krohns ---
(In reply to Sidney Markowitz from comment #14)
> Ok, the real problem seems to be frustratingly simple.
>
> t/SATest.pm uses t/data/01_test_rules.cf for its rules so it does not have
> to depend on th
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7982
--- Comment #14 from Sidney Markowitz ---
Ok, the real problem seems to be frustratingly simple.
t/SATest.pm uses t/data/01_test_rules.cf for its rules so it does not have to
depend on the ever changing contents of rules. When running in a
On 2022-05-01 at 16:33:13 UTC-0400 (Sun, 1 May 2022 16:33:13 -0400)
Kevin A. McGrail
is rumored to have said:
On 5/1/2022 4:12 PM, Michael Storz wrote:
Kevin, the change from 'return undef' to "return" is correct because
return returns undef in the scalar context. "return undef" should
only b
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7982
--- Comment #13 from Sidney Markowitz ---
(In reply to Kevin A. McGrail from comment #12)
> Primarily, I would likely look at what changed between 3.4.6 and 4.0
I can do that. I do think it would be much simpler all around if the tests did
On 5/1/2022 4:12 PM, Michael Storz wrote:
Kevin, the change from 'return undef' to "return" is correct because
return returns undef in the scalar context. "return undef" should only
be used when evaluated in the array context and the value undef is
needed instead of ().
I only looked at the c
Am 2022-05-01 20:02, schrieb Kevin A. McGrail:
On 5/1/2022 1:28 PM, Michael Storz wrote:
Am 2022-05-01 18:22, schrieb Kevin A. McGrail:
Morning Hege,
This change worries me. What does the comment "let per figure it out
from the BOM" mean and does the change on the return undef change
that?
W
On 5/1/2022 1:28 PM, Michael Storz wrote:
Am 2022-05-01 18:22, schrieb Kevin A. McGrail:
Morning Hege,
This change worries me. What does the comment "let per figure it out
from the BOM" mean and does the change on the return undef change
that?
Worried that Perl Critic is complaining about s
Am 2022-05-01 18:22, schrieb Kevin A. McGrail:
Morning Hege,
This change worries me. What does the comment "let per figure it out
from the BOM" mean and does the change on the return undef change
that?
Worried that Perl Critic is complaining about something that was done
on purpose.
Do we hav
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7982
--- Comment #12 from Kevin A. McGrail ---
Sidney,
Primarily, I would likely look at what changed between 3.4.6 and 4.0 since
those don't look like new tests to see why they now fail. I would double
confirm that 3.4.6 passes a make test fi
Morning Hege,
This change worries me. What does the comment "let per figure it out
from the BOM" mean and does the change on the return undef change that?
Worried that Perl Critic is complaining about something that was done on
purpose.
Do we have a good test case for this change? if not
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7982
--- Comment #11 from Sidney Markowitz ---
I identified 12 tests that require a total of 20 rules/*.cf files.
That does not count tests that I didn't run, including network and root tests
and any others that got skipped in my configuration.
On 5/1/22 07:47, Sidney Markowitz wrote:
> Kevin A. McGrail wrote on 1/05/22 3:47 pm:
>> A) When was that MANIFEST change because I do believe there are a couple
>> of items that should be included. I think it's used with ruleqa or
>> something.
>
> r1880742 | gbechis | 2020-08-11 02:29:41 +1200
WLBL code currently committed in trunk seems fully functional to me and I
cannot spot any issues.
I am currently running trunk r1900387 on a server and r1899446 on all other
servers.
Just updated to rc1 most servers without issues so far.
kb@ told me that he has better code for "plaintext_body_si
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7982
--- Comment #10 from Sidney Markowitz ---
Now I tried it without the link to t.rules and it still passed. I guess more of
the failures had to do with the too long path than I had recognized.
Next step, I'll binary search through the files i
Kevin A. McGrail wrote on 1/05/22 6:58 pm:
I'd recommend the next build is a prerelease build instead of an RC
build until a few people report they are running it in production. I'm
working hard to get it into production at PCCC.
+1, will do. It's just a name, and a more accurate one in this
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7983
--- Comment #22 from Henrik Krohns ---
(In reply to Kevin A. McGrail from comment #21)
>
> Hege, there is no need to patronize. I've been a release manager for several
> SA releases. I have asked several times: Does allmodules.t fail or is
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7982
--- Comment #9 from Sidney Markowitz ---
(In reply to Kevin A. McGrail from comment #8)
> What's the behavior of a 3.4.6 tar ball and make test? What's in that
> MANIFEST?
3.4.6 just works. The only .cf file it has in it's MANIFEST that tr
20 matches
Mail list logo
