From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (pb-smtp1.pobox.com [64.147.108.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3EE8114C5AE for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2024 18:26:08 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.70 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1724264770; cv=none; b=XybBRxypdWlQRt6E9vr5lgtfpg+AO29d8lTanEW0Ct3iL06C3da7UCsQY4C4rQGCRPQKU7AYw5GMSASmtx/ogLQ5lCXagTwtRHuzPwG3qsqBnCDBQI5jf1tjKCWVnguryyzXQOjaA4MYxx8mBTd0i6TQqA2NbJPBOFqf/cDGv4w= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1724264770; c=relaxed/simple; bh=0ROBRY4oBMV00YME2rkirnuyNuQyN79XMOQEHosKFb8=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=arHHoyNDYuYOfc7AyxKv/xaIiV02MsPe7x9fKY2e9QxxKueqvso9XI/nuoWaiY0X2eNyhXOVmqhzIPi/oF5jKAILt/cywRdnycbFF+G9hNkvJqqmwR7LzZOCY7LSaiV32Jj2c0fZ4A24uge+aup1ZdMRKCGJCQlOXFkO2tFXVFY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=SiTp636p; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.70 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="SiTp636p" Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EEC737E2D; Wed, 21 Aug 2024 14:26:08 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from gitster@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=0ROBRY4oBMV00YME2rkirnuyNuQyN79XMOQEHo sKFb8=; b=SiTp636pT0rQqnsqK2555LtC7PsXW4jyZ9dYSbD2pvqrtDdXueoefB HDrZUeCOAxH6YaXI6FxYKTgRQ+i/nObeE+DozlG0bwSa4Wxv4i/pNJna+SBQ/RIq JCR3oY4ifSWg26XcTry2+Tc6shFh7rBe9Ubow3NEpxy2FinYf5YY0= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 268AD37E2C; Wed, 21 Aug 2024 14:26:08 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from gitster@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.94.240]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8B9EC37E2A; Wed, 21 Aug 2024 14:26:07 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from gitster@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Josh Steadmon Cc: Jacob Keller , Eric Sunshine , Jeff King , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] check-mailmap: accept "user@host" contacts In-Reply-To: (Josh Steadmon's message of "Wed, 21 Aug 2024 10:50:14 -0700") References: <20240819-jk-send-email-mailmap-support-v2-0-d212c3f9e505@gmail.com> <20240819-jk-send-email-mailmap-support-v2-1-d212c3f9e505@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2024 11:26:06 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: D5368CAE-5FEA-11EF-8777-2BAEEB2EC81B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Josh Steadmon writes: >> test_expect_success 'check-mailmap bogus contact' ' >> - test_must_fail git check-mailmap bogus >> + cat >expect <<-EOF && >> + >> + EOF >> + git check-mailmap bogus >actual && >> + test_cmp expect actual >> ' > > I think I'd just remove this test case altogether, IIUC it' doesn't > provide any additional value vs. the "check-mailmap simple address: no > mapping" test below. Sorry, but I do not follow. The other one is that looks more globally routable address than a local-only mailbox. Isn't it worth ensuring that we will keep treating them the same way? Having said that ... >> -For each ``Name $$$$'' or ``$$$$'' from the command-line >> -or standard input (when using `--stdin`), look up the person's canonical name >> -and email address (see "Mapping Authors" below). If found, print them; >> -otherwise print the input as-is. >> +For each ``Name $$$$'', ``$$$$'', or ``$$user@host$$'' >> +from the command-line or standard input (when using `--stdin`), look up the >> +person's canonical name and email address (see "Mapping Authors" below). If >> +found, print them; otherwise print the input as-is. ... it seems that without <@host> is a supported format. Should we update the document, too? If the @host-less name is meant to trigger a random unspecified behaviour, whatever the code happens to do, that is perfectly fine, but then we probably should not be etching it in the stone by writing a test for it. So because of a reason that is completely different from yours, I'd support removal of the "bogus" test, if that is the case. Thanks.