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).

Reply via email to