From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 160A2207DF for ; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 22:55:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753932AbcIPWzz (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Sep 2016 18:55:55 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:53423 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752835AbcIPWzz (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Sep 2016 18:55:55 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDBDD3F470; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 18:55:53 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=BJYj079hV5EQgCvbUeerPEHcNrE=; b=kzFrPo giZC0fP3XXerOrFsM+oa3vybHD6hkdXqr1zVSQiNmKMwwEHoQiKHgWo9UvqcI5Mt 7NqSNb8/dO7HlFz3+fyudDf9ZSjththd7qG8E9W+XWeC1SL3VD4ABYS/iJ5xduBr aguaXyDCvDrjszS5xfU70MgxnXydtx7dd5+q4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=hITNXamHInw76hgbtsHlFnhtOooCcRZ7 a1eIWKItwE2WB80nelVpqv0+11sBm4gWH9NKPdHXNL+cA2bOB+9LMuxu61z5T22/ JTAY0Q64nY/U8N1MuQvnc15LSLEmTMdfCMfhwXvKmg9e9v1SHH7atVLMz+7WQrUO v7Ku21ucmz4= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D60963F46E; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 18:55:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 588A13F46D; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 18:55:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jonathan Tan Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, peff@peff.net Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 2/3] mailinfo: correct malformed test example References: <20160907063819.dd7aulnlsytcuyqj@sigill.intra.peff.net> <5dbb0b0f64906fd18c217908cd2c04e74d80fa68.1474047135.git.jonathantanmy@google.com> <2bfc2fc7-f16b-6d51-7353-54d38353464a@google.com> Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 15:55:51 -0700 In-Reply-To: <2bfc2fc7-f16b-6d51-7353-54d38353464a@google.com> (Jonathan Tan's message of "Fri, 16 Sep 2016 15:42:48 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: B865FB44-7C60-11E6-BC49-5D827B1B28F4-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jonathan Tan writes: > On 09/16/2016 12:19 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Jonathan Tan writes: >> >>> An existing sample message (0015) in the tests for mailinfo contains an >>> indented line immediately after an in-body header (without any >>> intervening blank line). >> >> This comes from d25e5159 ("git am/mailinfo: Don't look at in-body >> headers when rebasing", 2009-11-20), where we want to make sure that >> a "From: bogosity" that isn't meant to be an in-body header is not >> identified as such, even when it is immediately followed by a >> non-blank line. "From: bogosity" is for msg0015 but the same >> applies to the header-looking block for msg0008. >> >> Adding a blank line there will defeat the whole point of the test, >> which is to make sure we don't do anything funky when --no-inbody-headers >> is asked for, no? > > Before I revise the patch set...I think that the point of 0015 would > be handled by 0008 (after this patch is applied), but if you prefer > that 0015 retain its purpose, I can unindent the bullet list in 0015 > instead of adding the extra line (and then dropping all 0008 > changes). Would that be better? (0015 needs to be changed somehow, > because its indented line would be interpreted as a continuation line > after RFC/PATCH 3/3 is applied.) Hmph, these: t/t5100/info0008--no-inbody-headers | 5 +++++ t/t5100/msg0008--no-inbody-headers | 6 ++++++ t/t5100/msg0015--no-inbody-headers | 1 + have --no-inbody-headers in their names; wouldn't that an indication that they are expected output when mailinfo is run while in-body header feature disabled? I would have expected that it would make more sense to make no change to sample.mbox and have updated expectation to outputs in the case where in-body header feature is enabled. To make sure this new feature will not break in the future, we would want a brand new message with a folded in-body header added to the sample.mbox, and see how it is parsed by mailinfo with in-body header feature enabled (and disabled).