| Message ID | 20230120012459.920932-1-michael.strawbridge@amd.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | send-email: expose header information to git-send-email's sendemail-validate hook | expand |
On Thu, Jan 19 2023, Michael Strawbridge wrote: > 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). * 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?... * ...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: <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)
On 2023-01-23 08:51, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > On Thu, Jan 19 2023, Michael Strawbridge wrote: > >> 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.
On Mon, Jan 23 2023, Michael Strawbridge wrote: > On 2023-01-23 08:51, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: * 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. Sorry, a byte offset into the file to indicate the boundary between the headers and the content. > >> <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? No, I'm saying that we currently don't pass them at all, and your patch adds another argument to a file with the headers. That *may* break some existing users if they're only expecting the current argument(s) (although that's probably unlikely), more importantly we're now doing extra work for all existing hook users, for the benefit of only some new users. So I'm suggesting having some opt-in mechanism for the new semantics, both to preserve the existing semantics for existing users, and for current and new users avoid writing out the file etc. when we don't need to. Which we could do with a config variable, e.g. hooks."sendemail-validate".includeHeaders=true, or just by having a new "sendemail-validate-raw" (or whatever we'd call it). I think it's fine to enforce that if such a new hook exists we'd take it over the "sendemail-validate" (if any), i.e. we wouldn't need to support both.
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(-)