Closed (fixed)
Project:
Spam
Version:
6.x-1.x-dev
Component:
Custom Filters
Priority:
Normal
Category:
Bug report
Assigned:
Unassigned
Reporter:
Created:
26 Dec 2008 at 18:22 UTC
Updated:
1 Jul 2009 at 19:50 UTC
Jump to comment: Most recent file
Comments
Comment #1
coreyp_1 commentederror due to form api changes.
Well, assuming that this patch is applied, then this one should work...
Comment #2
coreyp_1 commentedforgot to change status
Comment #3
luti commentedcoreyp_1, thanks.
I believe I've found another bug - after selecting one filter and execute disable, the following error comes up: "warning: Missing argument 3 for custom_spam_filter_operations() in .../spam/filters/custom/custom.module on line 449."
I think the first argument (form_state) is sufficient here (at least for this operation; or, it should be passed as a first argument, what is not the case here...). So, I've created a patch, which I am attaching.
This patch contains also 2 minor "cosmetic" corrections - I think that for consistency reason it is good that messages are all in the same manner: "Custom filter ### created/updated/disabled/deleted...".
Please review my patch. If form_state is can be) needed for some other case, the function call at line 439 shall be corrected instead (form state pushed in as a first argument).
Comment #4
luti commentedMaybe just another suggestion - custom filter weight explanation is a bit incomplete by my opinion.
According to this text, filter with weight -5 (lower = "lighter") is applied before filter with weight 5 (higher = "heavier").
But, shall this mean that both are applied, and the result of the second one overwrites the result of the first one (if yes, is it always or just in some cases, for example if both filters are "positive"...), or that the second one will be examined only if the first one doesn't recognize a post as a spam?
Comment #5
luti commentedI think I've found 2 more things that doesn't work - proposed patch is in attachment.
Comment #6
TBarregren commented@coreyp_1
I've reviewed and tested your patch in #1. It works as expected and looks correct.
@LUTi
I've reviewed and tested your patch in #3. It works as expected and looks correct. To avoid confusion about which patch to apply, I suggest you amend coreyp_1's patch with yours instead of offering it as a separate one.
@LUTi
Shouldn't your patch in #5 be posted as a separate issue? See also #352179: bad "Not Spam" link.
Comment #7
luti commentedTBarregren, both my patches should be posted as separate issues, I know - but unfortunately I didn't have time to create separate issues, but just wanted to post them ASAP. I see many new issues being reported in last 2 days, which I've missed somehow all of them. I will certainly try to be better in 2009! ;-)
Comment #8
gnassar commentedCommitted patch in #1. Thank you.