User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:126.96.36.199) Gecko/20070911 Fedora/188.8.131.52-8.fc8 Firefox/184.108.40.206 Build Identifier: version 220.127.116.11 (20070911) from Fedora Rawhide If I create a message containing subject"<foo@bar>" in the subject, send it to myself, and then try to forward it, the "<foo@bar>" is stripped from the subject. It's just wrong for thunderbird to be mucking with subjects like that. Reproducible: Always
I assume you mean in the body where the --- Original Message --- stuff is. Confirming on linux/trunk.
Or rather, it's just not shown (in html mode) as the < > are not encoded as < and > -- or so I assume as the plain text composition works fine.
Created attachment 460147 [details] [diff] [review] proposed fix Thanks for fixing this bug so quickly. :-) Patch attached.
(In reply to comment #3) > Created attachment 460147 [details] [diff] [review] > proposed fix > > Thanks for fixing this bug so quickly. :-) > Patch attached. You need to request reviews if you want you code to get in see https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Mailnews_and_Mail_code_review_requirements.
Comment on attachment 460147 [details] [diff] [review] proposed fix Ludo, I'm not a super-reviewer although I've heard talk of trying to make that happen. But I can chime in here as a reviewer and say that this definitely needs at least a unit test confirming the change in behaviour. If there are not already unit tests covering the cases where the removed/modified logic was supposed to be doing something helpful, test cases should probably be added for that too. (Please call out the existing tests in a buzilla comment if they already exist.) Sorta helpful testing link: https://developer.mozilla.org/en/MailNews_xpcshell-tests bienvenu is likely the right person to ask for review from once tests are created or if help is required in creating tests. I don't think super-review is required for such a patch, but if it is, bienvenu can give it.
(In reply to comment #3) > Created attachment 460147 [details] [diff] [review] > proposed fix > > Thanks for fixing this bug so quickly. :-) > Patch attached. Jonathan , you'll need to add some unit test (I forgot to look for these). If you need help with these please ask either here or on our mailing-lists or in #maildev on irc.mozilla.org.
The learning curve for figuring out how to debug and fix Thunderbird issues was steep enough. Unfortunately, I do not have the additional time that would be necessary to get over the undoubtedly steep learning curve that would also be necessary to write a unit test for something like this. One would hope that if a user of the software gave the time and energy to submit a fix, the developers of the software would meet the user halfway and write the unit test. Especially given that this bug has sat unfixed for almost three years. In short, can I please get a little help here? I've owned free software projects for much longer than Mozilla has existed, and I've never asked a user who contributed a fix to write a unit test for it.
Is there no one willing to meet me halfway here and write a unit test for this bug? I'd really appreciate the help.
Since posting comment #7 and comment #8, I've learned how to build and patch TB and FF and how to work with the unit tests for both, so I'll write my own unit test for this bug when I get a chance. That may be a while, though -- too many all-nighters fixing other TB bugs have left me with a work deficit I need to address -- so if anyone else stumbles across this bug and wants to pitch in by writing the unit test, I wouldn't say no.
Created attachment 606859 [details] [diff] [review] mozmill test Here's a mozmill test for it, you'd run it using make SOLO_TEST=composition/test-forwarded-content.js mozmill-one
Created attachment 609755 [details] [diff] [review] Consolidated patch Thank you Magnus! Here is a single consolidated patch that incorporates my fix and Magnus's mozmill test. Review?
Comment on attachment 609755 [details] [diff] [review] Consolidated patch thx for the patch! The mime parts of the patch seem to have bit-rotted - can you attach a de-bitrotted patch and re-request review? thx!
Created attachment 610139 [details] [diff] [review] Consolidated patch without repetition Apparently "hg export -o" appends instead of overwriting. D'oh! Updated patch attached.
Comment on attachment 610139 [details] [diff] [review] Consolidated patch without repetition thx for the patch, looks reasonable - can you use nsnull instead of NULL?
Created attachment 610180 [details] [diff] [review] Consolidated patch that uses nsnull instead of NULL Same as attachment 610139 [details] [diff] [review] which is already review+. The only change is to replace NULL with nsnull as requested by the reviewer. I've confirmed that it builds with the nsnull change, so I'm carrying forward the review+.
Bah, you're supposed to use MsgEscapeHTML, as per line 1435... patch coming up.
Created attachment 610985 [details] [diff] [review] Use MsgEscapeHTML
Sorry, didn't know. Why do we have two functions that do exactly the same thing?
Comment on attachment 610985 [details] [diff] [review] Use MsgEscapeHTML Neil's talking about supporting frozen linkage, which is a different way of building where only some interfaces are supported.
Comment on attachment 610985 [details] [diff] [review] Use MsgEscapeHTML Pushed changeset b1b2d61638f5 to comm-central.