Summary: sa-update can't update rules that depend on plugins to
parse their config lines
Product: Spamassassin
Version: SVN Trunk (Latest Devel Version)
Platform:
S/Version: other
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P5
Component: sa-update
AssignedTo: dev (AT) spamassassin (DOT) apache.org
ReportedBy: spamassassin (AT) dostech (DOT) ca
Since none of the plugins are loaded when linting the updates, channel updates
that contain rules such as whitelist_from_spf fail since config parsing (done by
plugins) fails. :(
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

spamassassin (AT) dostech (DOT) ca changed:

What |Removed |Added

Status|NEW |RESLVED
Resolution| |INVALID

Additional Comments From spamassassin (AT) dostech (DOT) ca 2006-08-12 07:24
Hrm. I guess this isn't a problem if the rules are wrapped in ifplugin lines,
which the SARE 70_sare_whitelist_spf.cf ruleset doesn't do.

You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

Additional Comments From jm (AT) jmason (DOT) org 2006-08-12 12:50
yep, it's important to use "ifplugin" in that situation.

I wonder if we should consider loading a (small, static) set of "default"
plugins when linting the update? for example, the eval-rule plugins and
spf/dk/dkim plugins would be logical.

You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

Additional Comments From spamassassin (AT) dostech (DOT) ca 2006-08-12 14:44
I think if we're going to load any plugins we should load whatever is configured
in the local site dir pre files. we may try loading plugins with
missing dependencies. Also, if we load everything configured, we'll actually
being linting what is really going to be run.

Why does sa-update currently not load any plugins?

You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

Additional Comments From jm (AT) jmason (DOT) org 2006-08-12 15:09
'Why does sa-update currently not load any plugins?'

good question; probably just because it was easier.

You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

Additional Comments From felicity (AT) apache (DOT) org 2006-08-12 15:45
(In reply to comment #4)
'Why does sa-update currently not load any plugins?'

good question; probably just because it was easier.

Not really. The goal is to lint the update and not lint the user's config. If
they have errors in their local.cf or a pre file, we want the update to still
succeed. So what happens now is that we explicitly ignore everything other than
the channel files, which means we never read the *.pre files which load plugins.

Even if we did read the pre files, and the user disabled certain plugins, we'd
still run into having plugin-related rules needing ifpluginendif statements,
so I don't really see the difference in that respect.

You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

Additional Comments From spamassassin (AT) dostech (DOT) ca 2006-08-14 06:01
(In reply to comment #5)
(In reply to comment #4)
'Why does sa-update currently not load any plugins?'

good question; probably just because it was easier.

Not really. The goal is to lint the update and not lint the user's config.

Ignoring everything inside an ifplugin conditional isn't really linting the
update though. I'd think that it's just as likely that there'd be a
typo/whatever inside an ifplugin conditional as there would be outside one.

Not bothering to lint config lines inside ifplugin conditionals just so that a
user can have a broken pre file configuration but still be able to do updates
just doesn't seem right to me.

You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

Additional Comments From openmacnews (AT) gmail (DOT) com 2006-08-30 16:23
<harried end-user perspective>
"I think if we're going to load any plugins we should load whatever is configured
in the local site dir pre files"

hear! hear!

when i build SA (currenly, svn trunk on SX), i "mv" all the silly/extraneous
pre files (which i would recommend be renamed *.pre.README_YU_SILLY_PNCE )

and put into *my* init.pre what plugins i want to load.

from my perspective, neither 72_active.cf nor 70_sandbox.cf, or anything else
(yes, i've griped abt this elsewhere ) should presume otherwise, or undertake
to override my instructions.

also, sa-update, imho, should recognize/honor *my* pluging config, whether it be
in just init.pre, or spread across multiple *.pre.

since it currently (apparently?) does not, sa-update (atm, of daryl's provided
SARE channels), fails lint with a bunch of error messages. iiuc, as a result of
not reading/loading the plugins from my config.

bottom line(s) -- imho, the end user should be made aware of the plugin
requirements in various readme's, wiki pages, documentation, etc., AND be
responsible for properly config'ing/enabling plugins.

all the automagic loadplugin/tryplugin should ALWAYS be conditional on the LACK
of any user-specified override, not the other way around.
</harried end-user perspective>

my $0.02

You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

spamassassin (AT) dostech (DOT) ca changed:

What |Removed |Added

Status|RESLVED |REPENED
Resolution|INVALID |

Additional Comments From spamassassin (AT) dostech (DOT) ca 2006-09-01 06:02
Re-opening requiring separate third-party rulesets for 3.1 and 3.2 just to
deal with rules that depend on what used to be in EvalTests.pm and are now in
plugins seems unnecessary.

Further, without using the local system's plugin config, it's possible for
sa-update to install an update that successfully lints when it ignores
everything inside ifplugin lines but doesn't work right with the actual system
config.

You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

spamassassin (AT) dostech (DOT) ca changed:
What |Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.1.5 |3.1.6
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

Additional Comments From spamassassin (AT) dostech (DOT) ca 2006-09-24 07:32
Would we be open to a "" option?

I'm still confused as to why we would ever want to install an update that isn't
going to later lint and work with the actual system config.

You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

Additional Comments From felicity (AT) apache (DOT) org 2006-09-25 13:55
(In reply to comment #9)
Would we be open to a "" option?

I'm still confused as to why we would ever want to install an update that isn't
going to later lint and work with the actual system config.

Just go ahead and change lint to use the local config. While the original
intent was to lint the update explicitly, having a fail-safe of also requiring
the local config to be correct for updates isn't a bad idea.

You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

Additional Comments From spamassassin (AT) dostech (DOT) ca 2006-09-28 21:21
Created an attachment (id=3706)
()
suggested patch
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

spamassassin (AT) dostech (DOT) ca changed:

What |Removed |Added

Summary|sa-update can't update rules|[review] sa-update can't
|that depend on plugins to |update rules that depend on
|parse their config lines |plugins to parse their
| |config lines
Status Whiteboard| |needs 2 votes

You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

jm (AT) jmason (DOT) org changed:

What |Removed |Added

Status Whiteboard|needs 2 votes |needs 1 votes

Additional Comments From jm (AT) jmason (DOT) org 2006-09-29 08:39
+1 -- tidied up a few loose ends nicely there ;)

You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

sidney (AT) sidney (DOT) com changed:

What |Removed |Added

Status Whiteboard|needs 1 votes |ready to commit

Additional Comments From sidney (AT) sidney (DOT) com 2006-10-03 16:24
+1

You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

Additional Comments From spamassassin (AT) dostech (DOT) ca 2006-10-03 16:30
Before I check this in Theo -- are you K with a failed local site config
lint using exit code 2?

You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

spamassassin (AT) dostech (DOT) ca changed:

What |Removed |Added

Status|REPENED |RESLVED
Resolution| |FIXED

Additional Comments From spamassassin (AT) dostech (DOT) ca 2006-10-03 20:56
[dos@FC5-VPC trunk]$ svn ci -m "bug 5044: include local site config in sa-update
lint checks"
Sending sa-update.raw
Transmitting file data .
Committed revision 452711.

[dos@FC5-VPC 3.1]$ svn ci -m "bug 5044: include local site config in sa-update
lint checks"
Sending sa-update.raw
Transmitting file data .
Committed revision 452712.

You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

jm (AT) jmason (DOT) org changed:

What |Removed |Added

Status|RESLVED |CLSED

Additional Comments From jm (AT) jmason (DOT) org 2006-10-06 05:52
there was a bug in this fix -- see bug 5119.

You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

jm (AT) jmason (DOT) org changed:
What |Removed |Added
BugsD| |5119
nThis| |
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.