On Thursday 12 May 2016 13:24:36 Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Thursday 21 April 2016 14:24:09 Timo Sirainen wrote:
> > On 11 Apr 2016, at 13:44, Pali Rohár <pali.ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thursday 07 April 2016 16:11:12 Timo Sirainen wrote:
> > >> On 06 Apr 2016, at 17:29, Pali Rohár <pali.ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> On Monday 04 April 2016 19:35:22 Pali Rohár wrote:
> > >>>> On Monday 04 April 2016 19:31:06 aki.tu...@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@host>
>
> before patch it was:
>
> test"test <user@host>
>
>
Timo, it is enough? Or do you need something more? Please let me know.
--
Pali Rohár
pali.ro...@gmail.com
