On 2023-01-23 08:51, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:

On Thu, Jan 19 2023, Michael Strawbridge wrote:

quoted

Thanks to Ævar for an idea to simplify these patches further.

Michael Strawbridge (2):
  send-email: refactor header generation functions
  send-email: expose header information to git-send-email's
    sendemail-validate hook

 Documentation/githooks.txt | 27 +++++++++--
 git-send-email.perl        | 95 +++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
 t/t9001-send-email.sh      | 27 ++++++++++-
 3 files changed, 106 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-)

Thanks for the update. Aside from any quibbles, I still have some
fundimental concerns about the implementation here:

 * Other hooks take stdin, not this sort of file argument.

   We discussed that ending in
   https://public-inbox.org/git/20230117215811.78313-1-michael.strawbridge@amd.com/;
   but I probably shouldn't have mentioned "git hook" at all.

   I do think though that we shouldn't expose a UX discrepancy like this
   forever, but the ways forward out of that would seem to be to either
   to revert a7555304546 (send-email: use 'git hook run' for
   'sendemail-validate', 2021-12-22) & move forward from there, or to
   wait for those patches (which I'm currentnly CI-ing).

Ok.  If we are at the point where the change is just trying to pass CI
but the main logic is there I am willing to wait some time.

 * Aside from that, shouldn't we have a new "validate-headers" or
   whatever hook, instead of assuming that we can add another argument
   to existing users?...

While it's true we could (and I don't have a super strong opinion here),
I suppose I was foreseeing the potential that a user may want to have
logic that requires both the email headers and contents.  For example,
only checking contents for a specific mailing list.  If we split the
hooks, a user would then need to figure out how to have them coordinate.

 * ...except can we do it safely? Now, it seems to me like you have
   potential correctness issues here. We call format_2822_time() to make
   the headers, but that's based on "$time", which we save away earlier.

   But for the rest (e.g. "Message-Id" are we sure that we're giving the
   hook the same headers as the one we actually end up sending?

   But regardless of that, something that would bypass this entire
   stdin/potential correctness etc. problem is if we just pass an offset
   to the the, i.e. currently we have a "validate" which gets the
   contents, if we had a "validate-raw" or whatever we could just pass:

I think there might be a part missing here: "problem is if we just pass
an offset to the ___."  So there's a chance I may not fully grasp your
suggestion.

	<headers>
	\n\n
	<content>

   Where the current "validate" just gets "content", no? We could then
   either pass the offset to the "\n\n", or just trust that such a hook
   knows to find the "\n\n".

   I also think that would be more generally usable, as the tiny
   addition of some exit code interpretation would allow us to say "I
   got this, and consider this sent", which would also satisfy some who
   have wanted e.g. a way to intrecept it before it invokes "sendmail"
   (I remember a recent thread about that in relation to using "mutt" to
   send it directly)

   

Are you suggesting to simply add the header to the current
sendemail-validate hook?

I appreciate the feedback.