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@xxxxxxx/; 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)
