spamassassin-sysadmins mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Merijn van den Kroonenberg" <>
Subject ruleqa user llanga
Date Fri, 10 Nov 2017 15:01:41 GMT
>>> Day 2 doesn't have that table with "mcviewing".  The next question is
>>> what is causing this problem.  Is it related to new commits that throw
>>> off the masscheck processing?
>> The 2 days ago doesn't highlight a current masscheck....but still it
>> shows
>> a result at the its showing *something*. I think its likely
>> it
>> is the masxcheck as present in the datrev input field:
>> 20171108-r1814560-n
>> But that one isn't in any daterev liting, not even in the full listing.
>> So i think something in the ruleqa.cgi which builds the daterev list is
>> broken and leaves out some masschecks.
>> If I get the cachefile and the ddirectory listings I can go debug where
>> things go pear-shaped.
> I have found one dubious piece of code where the masschecks are indexed
> based on their svn rev number. But that is not an unique value has the
> same revision  can be masschecked multiple times (by different
> submitter/date).

I think this is in fact the case.
There is something weird with masscheck user llanga.
Either something is off with the timing of masscheck result submission or
that user submits the masscheck result twice (once more the next day for
the same revision).
I think thats what triggers the bug in the ruleqa page.

ls -l html/20171108/r1814560-n/LOGS.all-*-llanga*
5356811 Nov 10 01:05 html/20171108/r1814560-n/LOGS.all-ham-llanga.log.gz
521798 Nov 10 01:06 html/20171108/r1814560-n/LOGS.all-spam-llanga.log.gz

ls -l html/20171109/r1814560-n/LOGS.all-*-llanga*
5356811 Nov 10 08:12 html/20171109/r1814560-n/LOGS.all-ham-llanga.log.gz
521798 Nov 10 08:12 html/20171109/r1814560-n/LOGS.all-spam-llanga.log.gz


same checksum so same files.
The question is, does the user do something wrong or is some scripting
messed up (maybe related to bad timing or timezone issues).

> Please see attached patch for masses/rulequa/ruleqa.cgi

I think i failed to attach patch correctly but send it directly to dave.

> If this is not it then I suspect code around line 453 which trims some
> revisions away. But its very hard to read code.

View raw message