From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12BAB6DE11F0 for ; Sun, 11 Sep 2016 11:37:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.007 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.007 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.004, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=disabled Received: from arlo.cworth.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (arlo.cworth.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pbAtSs_RfjbD for ; Sun, 11 Sep 2016 11:37:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fethera.tethera.net (fethera.tethera.net [198.245.60.197]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B59F6DE11EF for ; Sun, 11 Sep 2016 11:37:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from remotemail by fethera.tethera.net with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bj9cf-0006zn-Qb; Sun, 11 Sep 2016 14:36:57 -0400 Received: (nullmailer pid 20299 invoked by uid 1000); Sun, 11 Sep 2016 18:37:03 -0000 From: David Bremner To: Jani Nikula , notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] test: make it possible to have multiple corpora In-Reply-To: <8737l6warg.fsf@nikula.org> References: <1473609824-6258-1-git-send-email-jani@nikula.org> <87d1kapcoz.fsf@zancas.localnet> <8737l6warg.fsf@nikula.org> Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2016 15:37:03 -0300 Message-ID: <87a8fep9kg.fsf@zancas.localnet> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2016 18:37:08 -0000 Jani Nikula writes: > > Even for the *one* message in the referenced patch, I don't know where I > would put it as a message file. I worked around the issue by using a > here document (which you objected to), but it's a general problem. If > there's an issue someone sees, we can't just shove the message (or a set > of messages) that reproduces the issue under corpus, because it would > screw up all the other tests. There needs to be some other place. This > seemed like a generic approach to the problem. > > I could also imagine a shell helper function to add a single message > from somewhere under corpora to the db for testing. For some cases, it > might be more readable than using add_message. (And for my case, it's > impossible to use add_message because I need a broken message.) > OK, I didn't understand the combination of these two problems. In that case, the change makes sense to me. d