Re: [Nmh-workers] Where are we at for 1.7.1?

[David Levine]

Andy wrote:

> No, it does  not attempt the printf because ICONV_ENABLED=0

OK, so that's it:  the test doesn't handle that case properly.

> I'm not
> even sure what is supposed to alter  ICONV_ENABLED (I ran with sh -x and
> only ever  see it accessed  once). I don't see  it anywhere in  the test
> case in question, nor do I see it being set in test/common.sh.

It is set in test/common.sh, e.g.,

    test -z "$ICONV_ENABLED"  &&  ICONV_ENABLED="0"

> So,  even though  $actual and  $expected  are identical,  the output  is
> incorrect in both?  That doesn't seem correct; rather, it  would seem to
> me that if  ICONV_ENABLED=0 that the output is  actually correct output,
> and that inspecting iconv_elides_question_marks is the wrong thing to do

I think the 'replacement character in parameter value' test shouldn't be run if 
ICONV_ENABLED=0.  In that case, the charset parameter value is ignored.

David