Bug 1619 - make test: razor2 test fails
Summary: make test: razor2 test fails
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Spamassassin
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Regression Tests (show other bugs)
Version: 2.50
Hardware: Other NetBSD
: P3 normal
Target Milestone: 2.50
Assignee: SpamAssassin Developer Mailing List
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords: backport
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2003-03-09 09:28 UTC by Klaus Heinz
Modified: 2003-03-18 05:52 UTC (History)
0 users


Attachment Type Modified Status Actions Submitter/CLA Status
fixes t/razor2.t patch None Justin Mason [HasCLA]
revised patch patch None Daniel Quinlan [HasCLA]
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Klaus Heinz 2003-03-09 09:28:52 UTC 
Hi,

because of a mismatch between the test file razor2.t (expects 'Listed in
Razor v2') and the rules description in 20_body_tests.cf ('Listed in Razor2')
the test fails:

  t/razor2............    Not found: spam =  Listed in Razor v2 
  t/razor2............ok 2/2                                                   

This mistake seems to have crept in from rev. 1.5 to rev. 1.6 of razor2.t.

Please either change razor2.t or 20_body_tests.cf accordingly.

ciao
     Klaus
Comment 1 Justin Mason 2003-03-17 11:53:10 UTC 
well spotted. now fixed, will upload patch for 2.5
Comment 2 Justin Mason 2003-03-17 11:53:42 UTC 
Created attachment 770 [details]
fixes t/razor2.t
Comment 3 Daniel Quinlan 2003-03-17 14:07:09 UTC 
ISSUE: your patch misses some instances of that string.

Revised patch in a moment, please review.
Comment 4 Daniel Quinlan 2003-03-17 14:07:31 UTC 
Created attachment 776 [details]
revised patch
Comment 5 Justin Mason 2003-03-17 14:50:01 UTC 
ISSUE: I don't have a t/razor.t, I think it was removed a while ago.
otherwise looks good...
Comment 6 Daniel Quinlan 2003-03-17 14:57:51 UTC 
t/razor.t is only gone from HEAD, it's still in 2.50
Comment 7 Justin Mason 2003-03-17 16:19:24 UTC 
wierd. my 2.50 maintainance tree doesn't have it, must have picked the wrong
tag. anyway...

OKAY: looks fine then ;)
Comment 8 Malte S. Stretz 2003-03-18 14:10:21 UTC 
OKAY: should be applied for 2.51
Comment 9 Theo Van Dinter 2003-03-18 14:47:39 UTC 
OKAY: looks good here too.
Comment 10 Theo Van Dinter 2003-03-18 14:52:50 UTC 
applied to 2.5 branch.  closing ticket.