> Any chance of a unit test on this one?
Better late then never :)
--
WBRBW, Leonid Evdokimov
xmpp:l...@darkk.net.ru && http://darkk.net.ru
tel:+79816800702 && tel:+79050965222
From 505d1539e0436355e82054a515d4fabdc6a20e85 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Leonid Evdokimov
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 22
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 18:58, Nick Mathewson wrote:
> Any chance of a unit test on this one?
Sure. I'll try to grok tinytest this week.
***
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@freehaven.net with
unsubscribe libevent-users
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Leonid Evdokimov wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 18:36, Nick Mathewson wrote:
>> When you say
>> + if ((flags & 0x020f) && (flags & 0x020f) != DNS_ERR_NOTEXIST) {
>> + /* there was an error and it's not NXDOMAIN */
>>
>> I don't see how (flags
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 18:36, Nick Mathewson wrote:
> When you say
> + if ((flags & 0x020f) && (flags & 0x020f) != DNS_ERR_NOTEXIST) {
> + /* there was an error and it's not NXDOMAIN */
>
> I don't see how (flags & 0x020f) != DNS_ERR_NOTEXIST could ever be
> false. DNS_ERR_NOT
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 4:57 AM, Leonid Evdokimov wrote:
> RFC 2308 says a lot about negative answer caching.
>
> Here is patch, that discloses TTL of negative answer (if possible) to
> the library user.
>
Hi, Leonid! One concern:
When you say
+ if ((flags & 0x020f) && (flags & 0x020f) != D
RFC 2308 says a lot about negative answer caching.
Here is patch, that discloses TTL of negative answer (if possible) to
the library user.
--
WBRBW, Leonid Evdokimov
xmpp:l...@darkk.net.ru && http://darkk.net.ru
tel:+79816800702 && tel:+79050965222
From c903d9db417d2d8478eb7371e46dbc5ef60f650b Mo
