On 13 February 2015 at 09:12, FRIGN <dev_AT_frign.de> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 13:43:06 +0000
> Ralph Eastwood <tcmreastwood_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hey Ralph,
>
>> Attached is another patch for uudecode which I think works properly
>> now *cross fingers*.
>
> can we trust this code? Don't send a patch (or three patches) when you
> don't know if it is going to work.
> Did you thoroughly test it without issues?
>
> Cheers
>
> FRIGN
>
> --
> FRIGN <dev_AT_frign.de>
>
Hey FRIGN,
Yeah I am reasonably confident after the last patch. Uuencode always
worked but I had some issues on the uudecode in corner cases (Didn't
flush the decoded stream in the right places). One of the three
patches just removed some of the cruft I left behind during testing
uuencode. I manage to test uudecode on a number of inputs now with
some large files and different length streams to makes sure each code
path was tested.
For code like this - should we have some regression testing (perhaps
in a separate testing base), to verify POSIX compatibility? For
instance, sbase ls still has a bug with directory listing output.
Cheers,
Ralph
--
Tai Chi Minh Ralph Eastwood
tcmreastwood_AT_gmail.com
Received on Fri Feb 13 2015 - 10:23:58 CET