Update single email subject if present #802
Conversation
This reverts commit 6c23670.
util: gtld_map autopull updates for 2021-10-21T07:25:20 UTC
|
Ah, I see the issue, thank you for catching that @mtgag. I think that my take is that the later is preferred...
We've done this before in the repo wherein a lint checks additional, related, structures as a part of one unified lint. I believe that that this helps keep citation implementations near each other as otherwise it would be easy to forget to update one if the implementation were split. |
v3/lints/cabf_smime_br/lint_single_email_subject_if_present_test.go
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
v3/lints/cabf_smime_br/lint_single_email_subject_if_present_test.go
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
…ub.com/mtgag/zlint into update_single_email_subject_if_present
Should I incorporate lint_single_email_if_present (and then delete it) into lint_single_subject_email_if_present, or keep both and slightly refactor it to reflect the discussion here and comments from #795? |
|
My suggestion would be the latter. |
* lint about the encoding of qcstatements for PSD2 * Revert "lint about the encoding of qcstatements for PSD2" This reverts commit 6c23670. * util: gtld_map autopull updates for 2021-10-21T07:25:20 UTC * always check and perform the operation in the execution * synchronised with project * synchronised with project * synchronised with project * synchronised with project * added same lint for subject values instead of SAN values * resolved conflict issue * addressed review comments and hint to citation from #795 * addressing issue #795 and review comments of PR #802 --------- Co-authored-by: mtg <git@mtg.de> Co-authored-by: GitHub <noreply@github.com> Co-authored-by: Christopher Henderson <chris@chenderson.org>
This PR addresses an issue with lint_single_email_if_present.go. The lint takes a look into the SAN entries to check if there is an entry with two email addresses. The description and citation shows to the entries in the subjectDN. On the one hand taking a look into the SAN entries for two email addresses is meaningful, on the other hand the citation and implementation do not align. Therefore this PR adds a new lint to check the subjectDN entries, re-using the implementation. I believe following actions can be further taken. One is to keep the original lint and change the citation/description. A second is to incorporate the two implementations into one lint that checks both the subjectDN and the SAN entries.
Best,
Vangelis