Hi Pieter,

On Sun, Jan 06, 2019 at 04:38:21PM +0100, PiBa-NL wrote:
> Hi,
> 2 weeks passed without reply, so a little hereby a little 'bump'.. I know
> everyone has been busy, but would be nice to get test added or at least the
> biggest issue of the 'mailbomb' fixed before next release. If its
> 'scheduled' to get looked at later thats okay. Just making sure it aint
> forgotten about :).

Sure, and sorry for the silence, but as you guessed, I also think
everyone got busy.

> The 23654 mails received for a failed server is a bit much..

I agree. I really don't know much how the mails work to be honest, as
I have never used them. I remember that we reused a part of the tcp-check
infrastructure because by then it offered a convenient way to proceed with
send/expect sequences. Maybe there's something excessive in the sequence
there, such as a certain status code being expected at the end while the
mail succeeds, I don't know.

Given that this apparently has always been broken, I'm hesitant between
merging this in the slow category or the broken one. My goal with "broken"
was to keep the scripts that trigger broken behaviours that need to be
addressed, rather than keep broken scripts. My goal is to make sure we
never consider it normal to have failures in the regular test suite,
otherwise you know how it becomes, just like compiler warnings, people
say "oh I didn't notice this new error in the middle of all other ones".

Thus probably the best thing to do is to use it at level 5 so that it's
easier to work on the bug without triggering false positives when doing
regression testing.

What's your opinion ?


Reply via email to