On Thursday 07 April 2016 16:11:12 Timo Sirainen wrote:> On 06 Apr 2016, at 17:29, Pali Roh?r <pali.rohar at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Monday 04 April 2016 19:35:22 Pali Roh?r wrote: > >> On Monday 04 April 2016 19:31:06 aki.tuomi at dovecot.fi wrote: > >>> Can you please send them directly to me, please? > >>> --- > >>> Aki Tuomi > >> > >> Sent. > > > > Received? Are patches OK now? > > It would be nice if each commit was accompanied with the corresponding unit test change in test-message-address.c. Now that the unit test changes are done in a separate commit I'm not really sure which test change is testing which commit or if some tests are missing. At least the "Quote and escape strings if needed" patch needs more tests for different kinds of escapes/atext/non-atext chars and =? in strings. >Ok. If you really need that I can rework my patches. But I'm thinking what to do with tests... I have written lot of examples and tests scenarios in perl for that new perl module. But dovecot test framework is not easy to use as perl Test::More/Test::Spec and such complicated tests which I have are really hard to write directory for dovecot... Anyway, are you recofigured dovecot mailing list filter to finally accept git patches? Now you have all emails, so you should know what hit "drop" action and probably also how to fix it... -- Pali Roh?r pali.rohar at gmail.com
On Monday 11 April 2016 12:44:02 Pali Roh?r wrote:> On Thursday 07 April 2016 16:11:12 Timo Sirainen wrote: > > On 06 Apr 2016, at 17:29, Pali Roh?r <pali.rohar at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Monday 04 April 2016 19:35:22 Pali Roh?r wrote: > > >> On Monday 04 April 2016 19:31:06 aki.tuomi at dovecot.fi wrote: > > >>> Can you please send them directly to me, please? > > >>> --- > > >>> Aki Tuomi > > >> > > >> Sent. > > > > > > Received? Are patches OK now? > > > > It would be nice if each commit was accompanied with the corresponding unit test change in test-message-address.c. Now that the unit test changes are done in a separate commit I'm not really sure which test change is testing which commit or if some tests are missing. At least the "Quote and escape strings if needed" patch needs more tests for different kinds of escapes/atext/non-atext chars and =? in strings. > > > > Ok. If you really need that I can rework my patches. But I'm thinking > what to do with tests... I have written lot of examples and tests > scenarios in perl for that new perl module. But dovecot test framework > is not easy to use as perl Test::More/Test::Spec and such complicated > tests which I have are really hard to write directory for dovecot... > > Anyway, are you recofigured dovecot mailing list filter to finally > accept git patches? Now you have all emails, so you should know what hit > "drop" action and probably also how to fix it... >PING! -- Pali Roh?r pali.rohar at gmail.com
On 21.04.2016 13:50, Pali Roh?r wrote:> On Monday 11 April 2016 12:44:02 Pali Roh?r wrote: >> On Thursday 07 April 2016 16:11:12 Timo Sirainen wrote: >>> On 06 Apr 2016, at 17:29, Pali Roh?r <pali.rohar at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Monday 04 April 2016 19:35:22 Pali Roh?r wrote: >>>>> On Monday 04 April 2016 19:31:06 aki.tuomi at dovecot.fi wrote: >>>>>> Can you please send them directly to me, please? >>>>>> --- >>>>>> Aki Tuomi >>>>> Sent. >>>> Received? Are patches OK now? >>> It would be nice if each commit was accompanied with the corresponding unit test change in test-message-address.c. Now that the unit test changes are done in a separate commit I'm not really sure which test change is testing which commit or if some tests are missing. At least the "Quote and escape strings if needed" patch needs more tests for different kinds of escapes/atext/non-atext chars and =? in strings. >>> >> Ok. If you really need that I can rework my patches. But I'm thinking >> what to do with tests... I have written lot of examples and tests >> scenarios in perl for that new perl module. But dovecot test framework >> is not easy to use as perl Test::More/Test::Spec and such complicated >> tests which I have are really hard to write directory for dovecot... >> >> Anyway, are you recofigured dovecot mailing list filter to finally >> accept git patches? Now you have all emails, so you should know what hit >> "drop" action and probably also how to fix it... >> > PING! >Hi! Please see the other test-*.c files for information on how the unit tests are done. Aki
On 11 Apr 2016, at 13:44, Pali Roh?r <pali.rohar at gmail.com> wrote:> > On Thursday 07 April 2016 16:11:12 Timo Sirainen wrote: >> On 06 Apr 2016, at 17:29, Pali Roh?r <pali.rohar at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Monday 04 April 2016 19:35:22 Pali Roh?r wrote: >>>> On Monday 04 April 2016 19:31:06 aki.tuomi at dovecot.fi wrote: >>>>> Can you please send them directly to me, please? >>>>> --- >>>>> Aki Tuomi >>>> >>>> Sent. >>> >>> Received? Are patches OK now? >> >> It would be nice if each commit was accompanied with the corresponding unit test change in test-message-address.c. Now that the unit test changes are done in a separate commit I'm not really sure which test change is testing which commit or if some tests are missing. At least the "Quote and escape strings if needed" patch needs more tests for different kinds of escapes/atext/non-atext chars and =? in strings. >> > > Ok. If you really need that I can rework my patches. But I'm thinking > what to do with tests... I have written lot of examples and tests > scenarios in perl for that new perl module. But dovecot test framework > is not easy to use as perl Test::More/Test::Spec and such complicated > tests which I have are really hard to write directory for dovecot...Although it would be nice to have a lot of unit tests for everything, I think it would be enough to have just some to show what the change actually fixes. Maybe even just in the git commit message. I remember that by looking at the patches I didn't completely understand what all of the changes did.> Anyway, are you recofigured dovecot mailing list filter to finally > accept git patches? Now you have all emails, so you should know what hit > "drop" action and probably also how to fix it...It was supposed to work already the previous time, but for some reason didn't. I've since disabled the reply-to checking entirely.
On Thursday 21 April 2016 14:24:09 Timo Sirainen wrote:> On 11 Apr 2016, at 13:44, Pali Roh?r <pali.rohar at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thursday 07 April 2016 16:11:12 Timo Sirainen wrote: > >> On 06 Apr 2016, at 17:29, Pali Roh?r <pali.rohar at gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Monday 04 April 2016 19:35:22 Pali Roh?r wrote: > >>>> On Monday 04 April 2016 19:31:06 aki.tuomi at dovecot.fi wrote: > >>>>> Can you please send them directly to me, please? > >>>>> --- > >>>>> Aki Tuomi > >>>> > >>>> Sent. > >>> > >>> Received? Are patches OK now? > >> > >> It would be nice if each commit was accompanied with the corresponding unit test change in test-message-address.c. Now that the unit test changes are done in a separate commit I'm not really sure which test change is testing which commit or if some tests are missing. At least the "Quote and escape strings if needed" patch needs more tests for different kinds of escapes/atext/non-atext chars and =? in strings. > >> > > > > Ok. If you really need that I can rework my patches. But I'm thinking > > what to do with tests... I have written lot of examples and tests > > scenarios in perl for that new perl module. But dovecot test framework > > is not easy to use as perl Test::More/Test::Spec and such complicated > > tests which I have are really hard to write directory for dovecot... > > Although it would be nice to have a lot of unit tests for everything, I think it would be enough to have just some to show what the change actually fixes. Maybe even just in the git commit message. I remember that by looking at the patches I didn't completely understand what all of the changes did.Hi! Here are examples/test cases which patches fixes. Patches 3 and 4 should be self-explained... It is enough? Or do you need more detailed description about problems in parser/formatter? PATCH 1: struct: { { name = NULL, mailbox = "group", domain = NULL}, { name = NULL, mailbox = NULL, domain = NULL } } should be formatted as string: group:; before patch it was: group; PATCH 2: struct: { { name = NULL, mailbox = "", domain = NULL}, { name = NULL, mailbox = NULL, domain = NULL } } should be formatted as string: "":; before patch it was: :; PATCH 5: input string: test will be parsed as struct: { name = "test", mailbox = NULL, domain = NULL } before patch it was struct: { name = NULL, mailbox = "test", domain = NULL } PATCH 6: struct: { name = "test\"test", mailbox = "user", domain = "host" } should be formatted as string: "test\"test" <user at host> before patch it was: test"test <user at host> -- Pali Roh?r pali.rohar at gmail.com