Where to find the sources for the tinderbox status?

[Philipp Riemer]

Hi Christian,
LOL and thank you a lot for your long reply and the obvious hint ;-) I must
have been pretty tired to not realize this section in the script.

While rusty with Perl (I once wrote some Nagios check scripts in it several
years ago and before there were Icinga and Shinken), I got some test script
working and added my few cases. Unfortunately, I am unable to push these
back upstream (might be PEBKAC), so that I attached the patch to this mail.
Could you please take care of integrating the changes?

Have a nice week!
Philipp

PS: Next week - Linuxtag in Berlin <http://www.linuxtag.org/2013/>! Will
you be there?


2013/5/12 Christian Lohmaier <lohmaier+libreoffice at googlemail.com>

> Hi Philipp, *,
>
> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Philipp Riemer <ruderphilipp at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the link. Uh, Perl...
>
> regular expressions would be mor or less the same in other langauges,
> so no difference here. And using something else than perl "just for
> the sake of it" would be pointless.
>
> > Nevertheless, the important line seems to
> > be:
> >
> > ($line =~ /\b(?<!\/)[Ee]rror(?!\.)\b/)|| # C make error
> > [...]
> > What I want, is to ignore it if there is ... at the end of the string:
>
> You didn't bother to look at the whole file, so I won't bother to
> write a long reply right now.
>
> > So far I have the following (see <http://perldoc.perl.org/perlre.html>):
> >
> > (?!\.) matches
> > (1) a single arbitrary character or
>
> no.
>
> > (2) an exclamation mark or
>
> no.
>
> the ? signals a group-matching modifier. i.e. it changes the meaning
> of the () block. ?! makes the stuff in () to be a "A zero-width
> negative look-ahead assertion."
>
> > (3) a dot
>
> yes (and no) - it matches a dot inside the (), but the whole rule says
> it should only match the previous part *not* followed by a dot.
>
> Similarily, the (?<!\/) is a "A zero-width negative look-behind assertion"
>
> So the pattern matches Error or error, but only if that [Ee]rror is
> not after a / and not before a .
>
> > and the \b stands for "boundary" (alphanum on the left and !alphanum on
> the
> > right or the other way around), so obviously both, the tick and the
> slash,
> > are !alphanum (as is the colon, which should still match)...
>
> Nah, you'r tricking yourself again. \b ist a change of \w to \W (not
> just alphanum, but also _ and some additional unicode characters) or
> the other way round, as you wrote yourself.
> But a line like  foo/Error.something would happily match \bError\b -
> as the / marks a switch - but it should *not* match.
>
> > So maybe the easiest would be to add a "and !(A or B)" to the line to
> > invalidate a false positive match?
>
> No, see my comment abve about you not looking at the whole file.
>
> There are a bunch of whitelist lines in there, lines that matche the
> overall error-marking regexes, that should be *ignore*d (hint, hint
> :-))) and not counted as errors.
>
> ciao
> Christian
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/attachments/20130514/7d002b00/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0001-Added-rules-to-capture-more-false-positives-in-log-o.patch
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 2012 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/attachments/20130514/7d002b00/attachment.obj>