[Bug 7735] Meta rules need to handle missing/unrun dependencies
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7735
--- Comment #41 from Henrik Krohns ---
(In reply to Sidney Markowitz from comment #39)
> (In reply to Sidney Markowitz from comment #38)
> > In finish_meta_tests, when it does
> > delete $mp->{$rulename};
> > should it also do
> > delete $unrun_metas{$rulename};
> > in case one that was found as unrun in a previous loop now can be run?
>
> That does make the symptoms disappear. Is it correct?
No.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 7735] Meta rules need to handle missing/unrun dependencies
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7735
--- Comment #40 from Henrik Krohns ---
(In reply to Sidney Markowitz from comment #37)
>
> I got confused. I really have two separate questions. One is how the checks
> for meta and dependencies work when a meta is defined with a header rule
> like __THREAD_INDEX_GOOD, which I see is used with && operator, and a
> separate question is how the use of || operator works out with the
> dependencies. I don't know whether or not any of the header rules are used
> with a || in a meta definition.
It makes absolutely no difference what kind type of rules or operators are used
in a meta. Meta only works with and depends on "rulenames".
There is no "dependencies" other than waiting for all rules/rulenames to be
ready ($pms->{tests_already_hit}->{$rulename} created by got_hit or
rule_ready).
meta T_THREAD_INDEX_BAD __HAS_THREAD_INDEX && !__THREAD_INDEX_GOOD
For that do_meta_tests basically does:
$h = $pms->{tests_already_hit};
if (exists $h->{__HAS_THREAD_INDEX} && exists $h->{__THREAD_INDEX_GOOD}) {
$result = eval { $h->{__HAS_THREAD_INDEX} && !$h->{__THREAD_INDEX_GOOD} };
} else {
# loop until they exist, or declare unrun in finish_meta_tests
}
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 7735] Meta rules need to handle missing/unrun dependencies
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7735
--- Comment #39 from Sidney Markowitz ---
(In reply to Sidney Markowitz from comment #38)
> In finish_meta_tests, when it does
> delete $mp->{$rulename};
> should it also do
> delete $unrun_metas{$rulename};
> in case one that was found as unrun in a previous loop now can be run?
That does make the symptoms disappear. Is it correct?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 7735] Meta rules need to handle missing/unrun dependencies
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7735
--- Comment #38 from Sidney Markowitz ---
In finish_meta_tests, when it does
delete $mp->{$rulename};
should it also do
delete $unrun_metas{$rulename};
in case one that was found as unrun in a previous loop now can be run?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 7998] make clean should delete rules/70_sandbox.cf and rules/72_active.cf
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7998 Sidney Markowitz changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|Undefined |4.0.0 CC||sid...@sidney.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 7998] New: make clean should delete rules/70_sandbox.cf and rules/72_active.cf
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7998 Bug ID: 7998 Summary: make clean should delete rules/70_sandbox.cf and rules/72_active.cf Product: Spamassassin Version: SVN Trunk (Latest Devel Version) Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: minor Priority: P2 Component: Building & Packaging Assignee: dev@spamassassin.apache.org Reporter: sid...@sidney.com Target Milestone: Undefined Since rules/70_sandbox.cf and rules/72_active.cf are not in svn and are created by make, they should be deleted by make clean This is a minor change, but I'm opening this as an issue before committing the change in case I'm missing a reason to keep it as is. I think they are not in make clean only as an result of our historical use of the files. Anyone who knows something to the contrary, please weigh in. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 7735] Meta rules need to handle missing/unrun dependencies
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7735 --- Comment #37 from Sidney Markowitz --- (In reply to Sidney Markowitz from comment #36) > How does this work? I got confused. I really have two separate questions. One is how the checks for meta and dependencies work when a meta is defined with a header rule like __THREAD_INDEX_GOOD, which I see is used with && operator, and a separate question is how the use of || operator works out with the dependencies. I don't know whether or not any of the header rules are used with a || in a meta definition. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 7735] Meta rules need to handle missing/unrun dependencies
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7735 --- Comment #36 from Sidney Markowitz --- How does this work? rules/72_active.cf:header __THREAD_INDEX_GOOD is used in a number of meta rule definitions with a || operator. What does that do with the dependency checks and the do_meta loops in Check.pm? Is it certain that the header rules are evaluated before meta ones? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
