Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] check-mailmap: accept "user@host" contacts

On 8/21/2024 11:26 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Josh Steadmon [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

quoted

 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 [off-list ref]
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 ...

quoted

quoted

-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.