From: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2024 19:07:48 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] check-mailmap: accept "user@host" contacts
Message-ID: <f56b68b8-b5cb-4930-9139-da28bfae2976@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqjzg9ybpd.fsf@gitster.g>



On 8/21/2024 11:26 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Josh Steadmon <steadmon@google.com> writes:
> 
>>>  test_expect_success 'check-mailmap bogus contact' '
>>> -	test_must_fail git check-mailmap bogus
>>> +	cat >expect <<-EOF &&
>>> +	<bogus>
>>> +	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 <bogus@company.xx>
> that looks more globally routable address than a local-only <bogus>
> mailbox.  Isn't it worth ensuring that we will keep treating them
> the same way?
> 
> Having said that ...
> 
>>> -For each ``Name $$<user@host>$$'' 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.
>>> +For each ``Name $$<user@host>$$'', ``$$<user@host>$$'', 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 <user> without <@host> is a supported format.
> Should we update the document, too? 
> 

Its supported by happenstance, but i didn't want to encourage it.

> 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.
> 

I prefer removing the test. In an ideal world, I think we would probably
only accept actual <user@host> or user@host, but I did not think I would
create sufficiently correct parsing for addresses, so I left it out.

I did try looking up what the rules for addresses are, but it looks like
it got pretty complicated. I guess we could do very basic "it must have
an @ symbol, but anything else goes?


> Thanks.
>