Re: [exim-dev] [Bug 1184] code refactoring in acl.c

Top Page

Reply to this message
Author: Todd Lyons
To: exim-dev
Subject: Re: [exim-dev] [Bug 1184] code refactoring in acl.c
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Phil Pennock <pdp@???> wrote:
> On 2012-03-30 at 06:51 -0700, Todd Lyons wrote:
>> But then I get slight errors on each test.  This is typical output:
>> 220 ESMTP Exim 4.77_1102-226c389 Tue, 2 Mar 1999
>> 09:44:33 +0000
>> ----------
>> 220 ESMTP Exim x.yz Tue, 2 Mar 1999 09:44:33 +0000
> So the version number should have been changed in the tested binary by
> patchexim.
> Looks as though the last changes were by me in October when I found that
> the new version numbers generated by the build system were not handled
> by the test suite, so I fixed the tests to run as part of the release
> process.
> Further, it looks like I missed some other output formats.
> runtest normalises output.  Looks like the regexp isn't matching that
> version string.  The underscore is the problem.
> I've fixed patchexim to handle this variant too.

Are there more places with underscores that need to be touched? It
still fails on what looks like what should be something replaced:

Basic/0001 Basic configuration setting
===============f test-stdout-munged with stdout/0001 failed
>From line 22 of "test-stdout-munged" and line 22 of "stdout/0001" the

files are different.
warn_message_file = CALLER_HOME/test/warnmsg_file
warn_message_file = /home/exim/test/warnmsg_file
1 difference found.
"test-stdout-munged" contains 22 lines; "stdout/0001" contains 22 lines.

Thanks for the answers Phil. :-)

Always code as if the guy who ends up maintaining your code will be a
violent psychopath who knows where you live. -- Martin Golding