https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7987
--- Comment #17 from Michael Storz <sa-...@lrz.de> --- (In reply to Henrik Krohns from comment #15) > (In reply to Henrik Krohns from comment #12) > > Of course we can vote if got_miss() etc would be better name for > > rule_ready(). And documentation needs some more polishing. > > What I don't like about got_miss(), is that it doesn't necessarily mark a > "miss". It's possible to call got_hit() after it, especially in > multiple-lookups-for-one-rule scenario, where it would be complex for the > plugin itself to track all lookups. Much simpler to call rule_ready on every > callback. Though xurrent logic is not perfect either.. if the last lookup > timeouts, it ends up as unrun rule. I think it is the responsibility of the plugin to decide if a rule is a hit or a miss. It would be really bad, if it called got_miss first, which means I'm done and it is a miss, and then later to decide to call got_hit. If that could happen the logic of the eval rule is too complex and should be changed. However, if you think rule_ready is a tool which could support the decision making of the rule, then it is ok. I haven't thought much about that scenario. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
