https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7987
--- Comment #19 from Henrik Krohns <apache@hege.li> ---
(In reply to Henrik Krohns from comment #18)
>
> I guess we could brind back the deprecated Dns/is_rule_complete function,
> which can do the checks. So would this be the most elegant flow?
>
> sub callback {
> foreach (answer) {
> if (match) got_hit(thisrule)
> }
> if (is_rule_complete(thisrule)) got_miss(thisrule)
> }
Even still, that is confusing naming to me, since is_rule_complete() or
got_miss() must ignore any previous got_hit(). You can't be sure that all
developers make 100% correct logic in plugins. In that sense rule_ready()
atleast doesn't convey anything about rule hitting or missing. Rule missing
should be assumed as a default.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
--- Comment #19 from Henrik Krohns <apache@hege.li> ---
(In reply to Henrik Krohns from comment #18)
>
> I guess we could brind back the deprecated Dns/is_rule_complete function,
> which can do the checks. So would this be the most elegant flow?
>
> sub callback {
> foreach (answer) {
> if (match) got_hit(thisrule)
> }
> if (is_rule_complete(thisrule)) got_miss(thisrule)
> }
Even still, that is confusing naming to me, since is_rule_complete() or
got_miss() must ignore any previous got_hit(). You can't be sure that all
developers make 100% correct logic in plugins. In that sense rule_ready()
atleast doesn't convey anything about rule hitting or missing. Rule missing
should be assumed as a default.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.