Tests

diff --git a/40/0ed5d1d45990390806240aa4a74b8196a52a8a b/40/0ed5d1d45990390806240aa4a74b8196a52a8a
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..0bd9b35
--- /dev/null
+++ b/40/0ed5d1d45990390806240aa4a74b8196a52a8a
@@ -0,0 +1,108 @@
+Return-Path: <m.walters@qmul.ac.uk>\r
+X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])\r
+       by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14A8B431E64\r
+       for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 09:52:00 -0700 (PDT)\r
+X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org\r
+X-Spam-Flag: NO\r
+X-Spam-Score: -1.098\r
+X-Spam-Level: \r
+X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5\r
+       tests=[DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,\r
+       NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=1.2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=disabled\r
+Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1])\r
+       by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)\r
+       with ESMTP id eOHKvs+xtCL0 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;\r
+       Tue, 10 Jul 2012 09:51:59 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: from mail2.qmul.ac.uk (mail2.qmul.ac.uk [138.37.6.6])\r
+       (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))\r
+       (No client certificate requested)\r
+       by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51F03431FBF\r
+       for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 09:51:59 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: from smtp.qmul.ac.uk ([138.37.6.40])\r
+       by mail2.qmul.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.71)\r
+       (envelope-from <m.walters@qmul.ac.uk>)\r
+       id 1SodfD-0000gT-9s; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 17:51:53 +0100\r
+Received: from 94-192-233-223.zone6.bethere.co.uk ([94.192.233.223]\r
+       helo=localhost)\r
+       by smtp.qmul.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69)\r
+       (envelope-from <m.walters@qmul.ac.uk>)\r
+       id 1SodfC-0004Ge-VE; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 17:51:51 +0100\r
+From: Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com>\r
+To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Subject: Tests\r
+User-Agent: Notmuch/0.13.2+61~gf708609 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.4.1\r
+       (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)\r
+Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 17:51:48 +0100\r
+Message-ID: <87ipdv8spn.fsf@qmul.ac.uk>\r
+MIME-Version: 1.0\r
+Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii\r
+X-Sender-Host-Address: 94.192.233.223\r
+X-QM-SPAM-Info: Sender has good ham record.  :)\r
+X-QM-Body-MD5: e3e0620cb7299d73782119c568913a7e (of first 20000 bytes)\r
+X-SpamAssassin-Score: -1.8\r
+X-SpamAssassin-SpamBar: -\r
+X-SpamAssassin-Report: The QM spam filters have analysed this message to\r
+       determine if it is\r
+       spam. We require at least 5.0 points to mark a message as spam.\r
+       This message scored -1.8 points.\r
+       Summary of the scoring: \r
+       * -2.3 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,\r
+       *      medium trust\r
+       *      [138.37.6.40 listed in list.dnswl.org]\r
+       * 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail\r
+       provider *      (markwalters1009[at]gmail.com)\r
+       * -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay\r
+       *      domain\r
+       *  0.5 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list\r
+X-QM-Scan-Virus: ClamAV says the message is clean\r
+X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13\r
+Precedence: list\r
+List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."\r
+       <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>\r
+List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,\r
+       <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>\r
+List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>\r
+List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>\r
+List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>\r
+List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,\r
+       <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>\r
+X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:52:00 -0000\r
+\r
+\r
+I have been thinking a little bit about the current situation with\r
+regards to tests. There are quite a lot of tests in the review queue\r
+that have been there for quite some time without much interest, but I do\r
+think we are rather short of tests. (*)\r
+\r
+I wonder if we could have a sort of staging area for tests where they\r
+could roughly go in without review and would only be run by something\r
+like make stage-test or make all-tests or something.  The hope is that\r
+this would encourage more tests.\r
+\r
+The idea would be not that a patch author would have to make sure they\r
+all pass, but if they previously passed and no longer do then the author\r
+would know *something* about the output had changed.\r
+\r
+One example is the emacs elide test by Pieter\r
+id:"1329684990-12504-3-git-send-email-pieter@praet.org" which does still\r
+pass after my substantial change to the way elide is done (and is not\r
+currently covered in the test suite)\r
+\r
+Of course if someone does review one of these staging tests then they\r
+can be moved into the real tests.\r
+\r
+Best wishes\r
+\r
+Mark\r
+\r
+(*) for example the structured output patch accidentally changed the\r
+output of notmuch search --output=threads --format=json <search> but\r
+that was not caught by the tests.\r
+\r
+\r
+\r
+\r
+\r