Am Sonntag, den 09.07.2006, 12:25 +0200 schrieb Bernd Fondermann: > Noel J. Bergman wrote: > > OK, here is a scenario to reproduce. In the root processor, add: > > > > LogMessage > > ToRepository (pre-header) > > SetMimeHeader > > LogMessage > > ToRepository (post-header) > > ToProcessor (test) > > > > Needless to say, all of the ToRepository mailets should have passThrough > > set. And in the "test" processor, add: > > > > LogMessage > > ToRepository (post-processor) > > > > You could also instrument AvalonMailRepository.store to add > > mc.getMessage().writeTo(System.out) for debugging. You will see that the > > message is fine until we write to the spool, at which point it is corrupt. > > > > Still looking, but will resume in the morning after checking e-mail. > > > > Bernd, we should have some round-trip testing that would detect this sort of > > problem. :-) > > What Postage today is already helpful at is building a "clean room" > environment. All mail is kept within. This is good for debugging or > staging to production. > > It's not satisfying to see debugging going on on production systems. > > What Postage does not support is provide means to inspect its received > emails. I take this as a todo. We would probably want to check headers, > sizes etc. > Until we have that I'd recommend to attach the debugger of your choice > to James (or Postage) to see what's happening. > > Bernd
IMHO such a "debugging" should be better done with JUNIT tests... Postage is great for "performance tests" etc.. bye Norman
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
