Sidney Markowitz writes: > How did a meta rule get promoted without the rule it depends on?
that's entirely permissible -- but the mkrules compiler should then remedy it at build time. It doesn't seem to be doing this. This is definitely a bug :( update: fixed: svn commit -m "fix Sidney's bug; if a meta rule is defined in one rulesrc file, but it depends on another rules defined in other, lexically-later files, and the meta rule is promoted but the dependency rules are not, then the generated code will omit the dependency rule from the active set incorrectly. fix, and add test case" build/mkrules t/mkrules.t Sending build/mkrules Sending t/mkrules.t Transmitting file data .. Committed revision 464482. --j. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, On 15/10/06 9:53 PM: > > Modified: spamassassin/trunk/rules/active.list > > URL: > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/spamassassin/trunk/rules/active.list?view=diff&rev=464144&r1=464143&r2=464144 > > ============================================================================== > > --- spamassassin/trunk/rules/active.list (original) > > +++ spamassassin/trunk/rules/active.list Sun Oct 15 01:53:50 2006 > [...] > > # good enough > > -HS_INDEX_PARAM > > +HS_MEETUP_FOR_SEX > > > > # good enough > > -HS_MEETUP_FOR_SEX > > +HS_PHARMA_1 > > resulting meta.t test error: > > meta test HS_PHARMA_1 has undefined dependency 'HS_INDEX_PARAM' > > > -- sidney
