Mailman 3 February 2015 - Mailman-Developers

GSOC 15 Interested in project Mailman client written in Javascript
by kiran ps 28 Feb '15

28 Feb '15

Hi, I'm an Engineering student(computer science) pursuing my degree from Government Engineering College(Calicut University), Thrissur, India. I went through Mailman gsoc idea list.I'm interested in the project Mailman client written in Javascript. I have good skills in JavaScript, nodejs, angular, python. I am looking forward for a good response from your side regarding details about the projects so that I could start contributing towards it. Skills: Languages: JavaScript, nodejs, python, HTML5, CSS3, C, C++ Libraries: jQuery, underscorejs, zeptojs, KineticJS Frameworks: Angularjs, Express, Django, Tools: Vim, Git, Grunt, bower, Yeoman Thank you, { name: "Kiran P S", email: "pskirann(a)gmail.com", github: "github.com/kiranps", google+: "plus.google.com/+kiranps1", twitter: "@pskirann" }

1 0

Re: [Mailman-Developers] full anonymisation
by Abhilash Raj 28 Feb '15

28 Feb '15

Hi Rashi, You should post directly to mailman-developers for anything you feel is related to GSoC. I am not the sole person going to select a student for this (or any) project (even if my name is listed as probable mentor in the wiki). On 28 February 2015 at 12:39, Rashi Karanpuria <2013165(a)iiitdmj.ac.in> wrote: > Trying to hide things from list moderator may be a futile approach in case > of mailman, though allowing list moderator to be the supreme boss > decreases the no of user cases it serves for eg. a complaint/suggestion > list in organization mailing lists may end up useless as the head would > know who criticized him but it still covers many critical use cases. > Coming to the present approach we were wondering if trust was more > important than being anonymous I listed the use cases [1] and concluded > that being anonymous is a major feature than being creditable. As in the > whistle blower use case we were discussing, the concern was if we don't > keep the same fake id for an exposer, people won't believe her. But in my > opinion even if she keeps the same fake identity people won't believe her > until she proves or shows that she is telling the truth because the matter > she is exposing is critical and delicate and works on proofs. > > [1]: > 1. *Alcoholics list*: > Here alcoholics suffering and willing to give it up share their issues > and seek help from the community and people of the same type. Trust > though could act as a plus point here as we are handling a social issue. > But it still meets its purpose without involving trust as the major work > is to arrive to a solution and meet people of your type and share the > pain and get cured. > 2. *therapy group*: > Controlled by the doctor and as he knows everything being the list > moderator he can better help his patients allowing them to mingle > anonymously and as above it serves the causes aimed at. > 3. *Drug Peddlers group or mafia asso.*: > Although we are not aiming at helping this section of people but just a > thought! The king pin is the head and so is supposed to know everything > but the workers below him need not know him or the co workers. > 4. *Whistle Blowers*: > As mentioned it works on proofs and not trust. > 5. *Pope Confessions*: > Similar functioning to therapy group. > 6. *Battered wives*: > Suffers as if the list moderator knows the users (here wives not > interested in revealing identities to any one) who will she be so that > the wives (users) should trust her. > 7. *Tax Evaders*: > Trust here is not required as people believe if the method worked. If you > need trustworthy methods why would you subscribe to such a list. And even > if this list has trust in the form of permanent fake ids the person after > suggesting correct methods first and then lay the traps so people still > can't trust anyone here. > 8. *Teacher Student feedback and discussions*: > College/School authorities are the list admins and moderators here. And > in such a list lesser the trust better the feedback ;) > -- thanks, Abhilash Raj

1 0

Re: [Mailman-Developers] Approach for plugin ideas
by Aanand Shekhar Roy 28 Feb '15

28 Feb '15

Based on the discussion with @Abhilash, Below is the modified approach for plugin ideas: *Banned Words*: >> 1. We create a common set of words that are to be banned in a mail. > > How do you create such a list, who decides which words are banned? > Would it be possible to add/remove words from these lists from postorius? We create a default list of such words, like common racial and abusive words, the list will be displayed on the UI along with which we will provide two buttons "add" or "remove" which can allow list admin to modify it. > Will this list be list specific or global to one mailman installation? By default this list will be global to one mailman installation.But then, it can be modified as per needs of the list admin so it will be specific in general. >> 2. In list settings we create an option for list admin to choose action >>taken if a mail has banned words. > What according to you should be sane default for this? > Is is possible that > the banned words be removed or replaced with ****** and the mail be sent >to > the list so as to ease the life of list-admins? > Yes it is possible in the pipeline of handlers where we can extract and modify message string object, so the sane default will be replacing the banned word with "****". But the UI will provide options to list admin to change the default to "accept" or "discard". >> 3. We need to create a new rule in src/mailman/rules that checks >> for banned words in a msg string. >> 4. This rule is to be implemented in >> src/mailman/chains/builtin.py >> where it takes the action as chosen by list admin and then the control is >> passed further depending on the action taken. *Confidential Information Check*: >> 1. We need to create another rule which check for confidential info. like >> phone no and address credit card no. using regexp search. > How do you do that check? How can you differentiate any number from >phone number, Below is a regex for a 7 or 10 digit number, with extensions allowed, delimiters are spaces, dashes, or periods : For example: For numbers like (123) 456 7899, this helps in catching the ones with an area code in parentheses ([0-9]\{3\})[ .-][0-9]\{3\}[ .-][0-9]\{4\} We can extend it further to accommodate other international phone-numbers as well. > or credit card number? (Using reg-ex, yes, but what would the rules >be?) For credit-card numbers like: Visa : ^4[0-9]{12}(?:[0-9]{3})?$ All Visa card numbers start with a 4. New cards have 16 digits. Old cards have 13. MasterCard: ^5[1-5][0-9]{14}$ All MasterCard numbers start with the numbers 51 through 55. All have 16 digits. > Why is address a confidential information It depends, for some lists it could be a confidential information. >and how do you actually decide what > level of confidentiality you want to maintain? Will that be > configurable per-list or > globally in a mailman installation? We can provide provide checkboxes in postorius which will allow list admin to mark on the required fields. Like 1,Phone number 2,Credit-card No. 3,Address, etc. >> 2. If found we hold that message, and then we send an auto-reply to >>sender >> asking for confirmation if he >> intends to post such information. >> 3. This system works similar to the mail-back verification procedure >>during confirmation of email while subscribing where potential >> subscriber's reply decides the further action to be taken. > > How will you parse the response of the sender, will there be a > pre-defined format > like email commands in mailman? Yes, we will have some commands like say "OK-forward" in reply that will let it proceed further and "No-discard" if we don't want to. >Will you provide option in postorius too for the > same? If yes, how? No, keeping same settings will remove the flexibility, sometimes I would like to provide my phone number and sometimes no, so email command would be a better option. >> 4.Based on the user's response the held message will be processed >>further. > > Where will the message be stored while mailman waits for the reply from >the sender? We will have to make a queue similar to held message queue for this purpose. > Will there be a timeout for response after which the email will > automatically be > rejected (or discarded? ) > or will mailman wait forever for the > response? If you plan > to timeout what would be default value? The timeout will be there for a week after which it will be discarded. >> TIMED VACATION: First, I will try to implement above two ideas and if the time frame will allow then I would proceed on this further, otherwise I would like to make this one after Gsoc period.

2 1

Re: [Mailman-Developers] Postorius test debugging problem : tests_forms.py
by Abhilash Raj 28 Feb '15

28 Feb '15

On 28 February 2015 at 10:07, Pranjal Yadav <godricglow(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Abhilash, > > Thanks! it worked as you said. But renaming clean method is not > conventional. I changed the names and it looks like 'clean_password_repeat' > is good and that is the last input for that test as well, so I don't > understand why but that works. When you are concerned with cleaning only single field, you use clean_<field> method to do that. But when you have more than one fields to clean you put that under form's clean method. Also, form's clean method is run only after all the clean_<field> methods have already run. Why does clean_repeat_password work? I don't understand! It may be because it just cleans 'repeat_password' , whose removal does not affect the creation of User model and hence your tests pass. For further details regarding this read here[1] > The 'except' part for 'clean_email' is not functioning as expected and I > have already written the validation tests for that part as well. Its not being used because it is not required at all. You don't have to clean an EmailField, django forms does that automatically. They are simply CharFields which are validated for email. And before you ask, I don't understand why coverage shows that the part before 'except' is being executed. My guess is that when email is valid, forms execute the `clean_email` method, but when its not, the ValidationError is raised before the execution reaches the `clean_email`. [1]: https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.7/ref/forms/validation/#cleaning-and-va… -- thanks, Abhilash Raj

1 0

Re: [Mailman-Developers] Postorius test debugging problem : tests_forms.py
by Pranjal Yadav 28 Feb '15

28 Feb '15

Abhilash, Thanks! it worked as you said. But renaming clean method is not conventional. I changed the names and it looks like 'clean_password_repeat' is good and that is the last input for that test as well, so I don't understand why but that works. The 'except' part for 'clean_email' is not functioning as expected and I have already written the validation tests for that part as well. On 28 Feb 2015 09:53, "Abhilash Raj" <raj.abhilash1(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 27 February 2015 at 20:39, Pranjal Yadav <godricglow(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Abhilash, > > > > Thanks for your help. I read that we need to define methods as > > clean_<fieldname> however I missed > > I was cleaning multiple fields. For the listname method it works the way > you > > told me but I tried something > > similar ( http://pastebin.com/p40A19hU ) and it didn't work. If you > could > > tell me why is that? > > The list that you pass in choices is a list of 'tuples' which has 2 > elements in it. > The first is the choice to be displayed in the 'dropdown' and second > is its value. > > So you have to do something like this: > > self.domain_choices = > [('mailman.most-desirable.org','mailman.most-desirable.org')] > > and then call the ListNew class like this: > > form = ListNew(self.domain_choices, self.form_data) > > > Also I'm still puzzled when I run > > tox -e py27-django1.7 -- postorius.tests.test_forms.UserNewTest > > tox -e py27-django1.7 -- postorius.tests.test_forms.ListNewTest > > tox -e py27-django1.7 -- postorius.tests.test_forms.DomainNewTest > > Its not the correct way to run the individual test cases in django, it is > little > different from nose. You can run > > $ tox -e py27-django1.7 -- postorius.test.test_forms:ListNewTest > > -- > thanks, > Abhilash Raj >

1 0

Re: [Mailman-Developers] Postorius test debugging problem : tests_forms.py
by Abhilash Raj 28 Feb '15

28 Feb '15

On 27 February 2015 at 20:39, Pranjal Yadav <godricglow(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Abhilash, > > Thanks for your help. I read that we need to define methods as > clean_<fieldname> however I missed > I was cleaning multiple fields. For the listname method it works the way you > told me but I tried something > similar ( http://pastebin.com/p40A19hU ) and it didn't work. If you could > tell me why is that? The list that you pass in choices is a list of 'tuples' which has 2 elements in it. The first is the choice to be displayed in the 'dropdown' and second is its value. So you have to do something like this: self.domain_choices = [('mailman.most-desirable.org','mailman.most-desirable.org')] and then call the ListNew class like this: form = ListNew(self.domain_choices, self.form_data) > Also I'm still puzzled when I run > tox -e py27-django1.7 -- postorius.tests.test_forms.UserNewTest > tox -e py27-django1.7 -- postorius.tests.test_forms.ListNewTest > tox -e py27-django1.7 -- postorius.tests.test_forms.DomainNewTest Its not the correct way to run the individual test cases in django, it is little different from nose. You can run $ tox -e py27-django1.7 -- postorius.test.test_forms:ListNewTest -- thanks, Abhilash Raj

1 0

Re: [Mailman-Developers] MIME footers
by Daniel Kahn Gillmor 27 Feb '15

27 Feb '15

On Tue 2015-02-24 15:26:36 -0500, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > A while back I introduced an experimental draft about DKIM signature > generation that's sensitive to MIME structure. I'm planning to revisit and > maybe even implement this to get some experimentation going. It would help > guide the design work if I knew this: > > How does, or how would, Mailman add a footer to a MIME message? My guess > is that it would make a multipart that contains the original message > (message/rfc822) as one part and the footer as a text/plain in a second > part, but that's purely a guess. Mailman does not generate any message/rfc822 MIME parts. Here's what it does to add a footer (there are three cases): ------- If the main content-type of the message is text/plain, then mailman just appends the footer to the body of the message directly. So it goes from this: A └─╴text/plain 1216 bytes to this: B └─╴text/plain 1418 bytes ------- If the main content-type of the message is multipart/mixed, it simply appends a new text/plain part at the end of the message. So it goes from this: C └┬╴multipart/mixed 8690 bytes D ├─╴text/plain 625 bytes E └─╴text/plain attachment [foo.diff] 1290 bytes to this: F └┬╴multipart/mixed 8795 bytes G ├─╴text/plain 625 bytes H ├─╴text/plain attachment [patch.loadlin.diff.txt] 1290 bytes I └─╴text/plain inline 200 bytes (part I is the mailman footer). ------- If the main content-type of the message is neither text/plain nor multipart/mixed, mailman creates a new root MIME node of type multipart/mixed, takes the previous mime structure as the first child of that root, and places the footer as the second child with a content-type of text/plain. so it goes from this: J └┬╴multipart/alternative 10003 bytes K ├─╴text/plain 1459 bytes L └─╴text/html 1996 bytes to this: M └┬╴multipart/mixed 10572 bytes N ├┬╴multipart/alternative 3881 bytes O │├─╴text/plain 1459 bytes P │└─╴text/html 1996 bytes Q └─╴text/plain inline 120 bytes > Equally important: What would it do to sign a message that's not MIME > to begin with? Could it be compelled to turn it into a MIME message, > perhaps treating the original as a single-part text/plain message and > doing the same wrapping I described? Mailman doesn't usually sign messages. What kind of signatures are you asking about? hth, --dkg

3 2

Re: [Mailman-Developers] Postorius test debugging problem : tests_forms.py
by Pranjal Yadav 27 Feb '15

27 Feb '15

Abhilash, renaming 'clean_password' to 'clean' did help in running all the tests successfully but looking at the coverage stats I realized the 'invalid_email' test is still not functional since those lines are shown as 'missing' in stats, So it was just a work around and it didn't actually help. When I changed 'clean_email' to 'clean' both validation tests for email worked however now 'invalid_password' test went off and gave an error. Now I'm confused with the naming part! On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 8:39 PM, Pranjal Yadav <godricglow(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Abhilash, > > Thanks for your help. I read that we need to define methods as > clean_<fieldname> however I missed > I was cleaning multiple fields. For the listname method it works the way > you told me but I tried something > similar ( http://pastebin.com/p40A19hU ) and it didn't work. If you could > tell me why is that? > > Also I'm still puzzled when I run > tox -e py27-django1.7 -- postorius.tests.test_forms.UserNewTest > tox -e py27-django1.7 -- postorius.tests.test_forms.ListNewTest > tox -e py27-django1.7 -- postorius.tests.test_forms.DomainNewTest > > output : Ran 0 tests in 0.001s > > But after running this > tox -e py27-django1.7 -- postorius.tests.test_forms > > output : Ran 11 tests in 0.015s > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Abhilash Raj <raj.abhilash1(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Pranjal, >> >> I was able to run the tests in ListNewTest, and kind of debug the >> other test too. >> >> In ListNewTest you have two tests doing the same thing, probably you >> intended >> at doing something else, but there is nothing in there right now. >> >> there is a method of django forms called as `errors`. So you can simply do >> >> print form.errors >> >> and get the actual error in the forms printed when you run the tests. >> When I ran >> that I got "Passwords are not identical" error. Then I saw you changed >> the `clean` >> method in UserNew to `clean_password`. According to django >> documentation[1] when >> you are trying to access more than one field for cleaning you have to >> use `clean` >> method and not `clean_<fieldname>` method. Like `clean_email` method is >> cool! >> >> If you print the errors for `test_form_fields_listname` method, you'd see >> that >> it says that 'mailman.most-desirable.org' is not a valid choice. So you >> need to >> first create a domain with that host in `setUp` method of `ListNewTest`. >> >> I hope that helps! >> >> [1]: https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.7/ref/forms/validation/ >> >> On 20 February 2015 at 07:26, Pranjal Yadav <godricglow(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > I started writing tests to improve the coverage for postorius and I ran >> > into few problems which I couldn't solve for past few days. I added few >> new >> > test cases and re-ran tox. It seems somehow none of the tests ran >> although >> > the tox output says "ran 11 tests in 72.332s, failures = 3" >> > >> > Here is the link to my tests : http://pastebin.com/1jLhVsr2 >> > I did change a few things in forms.py : http://pastebin.com/2P3vXW7W >> > >> > After running these tests I realized UserNewTest and ListNewTest never >> > runs, though tox outputs it ran 11 test and failed 3 (mainly the >> assertTrue >> > for listname, password and email methods), when I tried tox -e >> > py27-django1.7 -- postorius.tests.test_forms.UserNewTest, it says 0 >> tests >> > ran in 0.001s >> > >> > 1) So I don't understand why the assertTrue validation is failing though >> > all the inputs to the form is prefect? I talked to Aurelien and Abhliash >> > and also followed ( >> > >> https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.7/ref/forms/validation/#validating-fiel… >> ) >> > however it left me with the same situation. >> > >> > 2) If the tests run with tox then why do they not run when a particular >> > testcase is tested? >> > >> > 3) I discussed this problem with Aurelien and he mentioned "Form class >> > shouldn't do anything in its __init__ function" however we do have >> __inti__ >> > functions in our forms.py. So do we need to modify something there? >> > >> > -- >> > *Pranjal Yadav* >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Mailman-Developers mailing list >> > Mailman-Developers(a)python.org >> > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers >> > Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 >> > Searchable Archives: >> http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-developers%40python.org/ >> > Unsubscribe: >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/raj.abhilash1%40… >> > >> > Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 >> >> >> >> -- >> thanks, >> Abhilash Raj >> > > > > -- > > *Pranjal Yadav* > > *IIT Kharagpur* > -- *Pranjal Yadav* *IIT Kharagpur*

1 0

Re: [Mailman-Developers] GSoC 2015: brainstorming ideas suitable for beginners?
by Terri Oda 27 Feb '15

27 Feb '15

I am quite aware of the definition of spam (in fact, I have a master's thesis on the subject). What I'm concerned about is that in the past, mail merges (which is what you're describing) is a feature that has often been requested by people doing marketing lists. It's not a subset of users I'm eager to attract, since a few bad apples could cause some unfortunate fallout for Mailman as users start marking messages as spam and, inevitably, sending us angry messages. (As the person who wrote the 2.1 documentation, I can tell you that I already get these on occasion as upset folk will send to basically any address they can find associated with the project.) It's not that it's a bad feature in isolation. But there are so *many* potential features for Mailman, and I'd like to see ideas that are less socially problematic get implemented first. Terri On 2015-02-26 11:52 PM, Ankush Sharma B.Tech. Electronics Engg, IIT(BHU), Varanasi (U.P.), INDIA wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Terri Oda <terri(a)toybox.ca > <mailto:terri@toybox.ca>> wrote: > > Honestly, I don't love this idea. I would be technically feasible > with VERP, > > I don't know about VERP. I will surely have a look. > > but it edges into features that are very popular for people sending > spam. > > Spamming would be the case when you are sending the emails to people who > don't want to receive such emails. While if we control the <email> > variable to take value from the set of emails of the list members only > and not allowing the use of template variables i.e < .. > stuff in the > *To: *field. > > > > > On 2015-02-26 11:32 PM, Ankush Sharma B.Tech. Electronics Engg, > IIT(BHU), Varanasi (U.P.), INDIA wrote: > > How about having personalized announcement mailing lists ? > > A personalized mailing list will allow mailman users to send > personalized emails to all the list members from a common email > template. Suppose I am the manager of a company and I need to > ask all > the workers for a meeting. I want each of my workers to prepare > a topic > to speak on during the meeting. For this I need to send each of > them a > message separately mentioning the topic he/she has to speak on. > > Suppose the email /template/ is like this: > > *To : <worker-email>* > *Subject: <sub>* > * > * > *Hello <worker-name>,* > * > * > *Hope you are having fun at <worker-place>. I am arranging a > meeting at > 5 p.m. on Saturday. I want you to speak on <topic> during the > meeting. > So, come prepared for that.* > *<other-suff>* > * > * > *Best wishes,* > * > * > *Ankush Sharma* > *Manager* > *foo-bar* > > > And I have a spreadsheet data on the mailing list server like this: > https://docs.google.com/__spreadsheets/d/1cAbdSmc1NA-__C9IZFjc___zB67qEvgmX… > <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cAbdSmc1NA-C9IZFjc_zB67qEvgmX8Jr3xY…> > > Mailman can have a functionality of flooding the /template/ by > using the > spreadsheet data. The variables in the /template/ (< -- > stuff) > would > be replaced by the corresponding row data in the spreadsheet > corresponding to the emails of the list members. This can > provide great > flexibility to mailman users who use mailman as announcement list. > > Later on, mailman can have the functionality of saving email > templates > and choosing one of them in a certain scenario. Mailing lists can be > made more personalized and powerful in this way. > > Expecting further feedback or suggestions on this idea. > > Ankush Sharma > IIT-BHU,Varanasi > github.com/black-perl <http://github.com/black-perl> > <http://github.com/black-perl> > > > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 4:40 AM, Barry Warsaw <barry(a)list.org > <mailto:barry@list.org> > <mailto:barry@list.org <mailto:barry@list.org>>> wrote: > > On Feb 25, 2015, at 04:12 PM, Andrew Stuart wrote: > > >I’m looking forward to being able to set and get > domainowner and serverowner > >(or siteowner or whatever its called). It will allow me to > delete lots of > >code and there’s no greater joy than deleting code. > > > >Are you anticipating this will be in V3.0? > > Please file a bug and we'll see. ;) > > Cheers, > -Barry > > _________________________________________________ > Mailman-Developers mailing list > Mailman-Developers(a)python.org > <mailto:Mailman-Developers@python.org> > <mailto:Mailman-Developers@__python.org > <mailto:Mailman-Developers@python.org>> > https://mail.python.org/__mailman/listinfo/mailman-__developers > <https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers> > Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 > Searchable Archives: > http://www.mail-archive.com/__mailman-developers%40python.__org/ > <http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-developers%40python.org/> > Unsubscribe: > https://mail.python.org/__mailman/options/mailman-__developers/ankush.sharm… > <https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/ankush.sharma.ec…> > > Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 > > > >

3 2

Re: [Mailman-Developers] Postorius test debugging problem : tests_forms.py
by Pranjal Yadav 27 Feb '15

27 Feb '15

Hi Abhilash, Thanks for your help. I read that we need to define methods as clean_<fieldname> however I missed I was cleaning multiple fields. For the listname method it works the way you told me but I tried something similar ( http://pastebin.com/p40A19hU ) and it didn't work. If you could tell me why is that? Also I'm still puzzled when I run tox -e py27-django1.7 -- postorius.tests.test_forms.UserNewTest tox -e py27-django1.7 -- postorius.tests.test_forms.ListNewTest tox -e py27-django1.7 -- postorius.tests.test_forms.DomainNewTest output : Ran 0 tests in 0.001s But after running this tox -e py27-django1.7 -- postorius.tests.test_forms output : Ran 11 tests in 0.015s On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Abhilash Raj <raj.abhilash1(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Pranjal, > > I was able to run the tests in ListNewTest, and kind of debug the > other test too. > > In ListNewTest you have two tests doing the same thing, probably you > intended > at doing something else, but there is nothing in there right now. > > there is a method of django forms called as `errors`. So you can simply do > > print form.errors > > and get the actual error in the forms printed when you run the tests. When > I ran > that I got "Passwords are not identical" error. Then I saw you changed > the `clean` > method in UserNew to `clean_password`. According to django > documentation[1] when > you are trying to access more than one field for cleaning you have to > use `clean` > method and not `clean_<fieldname>` method. Like `clean_email` method is > cool! > > If you print the errors for `test_form_fields_listname` method, you'd see > that > it says that 'mailman.most-desirable.org' is not a valid choice. So you > need to > first create a domain with that host in `setUp` method of `ListNewTest`. > > I hope that helps! > > [1]: https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.7/ref/forms/validation/ > > On 20 February 2015 at 07:26, Pranjal Yadav <godricglow(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I started writing tests to improve the coverage for postorius and I ran > > into few problems which I couldn't solve for past few days. I added few > new > > test cases and re-ran tox. It seems somehow none of the tests ran > although > > the tox output says "ran 11 tests in 72.332s, failures = 3" > > > > Here is the link to my tests : http://pastebin.com/1jLhVsr2 > > I did change a few things in forms.py : http://pastebin.com/2P3vXW7W > > > > After running these tests I realized UserNewTest and ListNewTest never > > runs, though tox outputs it ran 11 test and failed 3 (mainly the > assertTrue > > for listname, password and email methods), when I tried tox -e > > py27-django1.7 -- postorius.tests.test_forms.UserNewTest, it says 0 tests > > ran in 0.001s > > > > 1) So I don't understand why the assertTrue validation is failing though > > all the inputs to the form is prefect? I talked to Aurelien and Abhliash > > and also followed ( > > > https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.7/ref/forms/validation/#validating-fiel… > ) > > however it left me with the same situation. > > > > 2) If the tests run with tox then why do they not run when a particular > > testcase is tested? > > > > 3) I discussed this problem with Aurelien and he mentioned "Form class > > shouldn't do anything in its __init__ function" however we do have > __inti__ > > functions in our forms.py. So do we need to modify something there? > > > > -- > > *Pranjal Yadav* > > _______________________________________________ > > Mailman-Developers mailing list > > Mailman-Developers(a)python.org > > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers > > Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 > > Searchable Archives: > http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-developers%40python.org/ > > Unsubscribe: > https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/raj.abhilash1%40… > > > > Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 > > > > -- > thanks, > Abhilash Raj > -- *Pranjal Yadav* *IIT Kharagpur*

1 0