Re: Is this a bug in ruleqa?

[Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org>]

Sidney Markowitz writes:
> Looking at the details for a rule
> 
> http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20080422-r650419-n/FB_CIALIS_LEO3/detail
> 
> This is supposed to be for last night's run, but the details are way old, with the header 
> saying:
> 
> Detailed results for rule FB_CIALIS_LEO3, from source file 
> rulesrc/sandbox/emailed/00_FVGT_File001.cf, tflags HASH(0xa0338d0). Source file was last 
> modified on 2008-01-09 10:16:13 UTC.
> 
> Is this a bug?

No -- that file really hasn't been modified since about then:

: jm 200...; l rulesrc/sandbox/emailed/00_FVGT_File001.cf
-rw-rw-r-- 2 jm jm 211269 Jan  7 22:21 rulesrc/sandbox/emailed/00_FVGT_File001.cf

(well, it seems to be off a day or two! wtf. I think I have
that fixed now though.)

Are you confusing the rule's mod time, with the mass-check time?

was there some other bug?  aside from the tflags screwup too which
should also be fixed now ;)

--j.

Re: Is this a bug in ruleqa?

[Sidney Markowitz <si...@sidney.com>]

Justin Mason wrote, On 24/4/08 9:26 PM:
> (well, it seems to be off a day or two! wtf. I think I have
> that fixed now though.)
> 
> Are you confusing the rule's mod time, with the mass-check time?

I noticed that the numbers did not match (the off by a day or two thing which has since 
cleared up) which set my frame of mind to confuse the rule's mod time with the mass-check 
time. All good now.

  -- sidney