Support matching to local part of recipients #43
Conversation
| .map( | ||
| pattern => pattern.toLowerCase() | ||
| .replace(/^(-?)@/, '$1') // "@example.com" => "example.com" | ||
| .replace(/^(-?)(?![^@]+@)/, '$1?*@') // "example.com" => "?*@example.com" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is example.com really replaced to ?*@example.com ?
/^(-?)(?![^@]+@)/ seems to require @, but example.com has no @.
Also, is ?*@example.com a valid regexp pattern?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(Sorry if I misunderstood.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(?![^@]+@) is a negative lookahead assertion, so the regexp means "at the start position of the string, there is a - or not, and next to that, there is no part matching to [^@]+@ (any local part)." So it will match to example.com but won't match to [email protected]. As the result, the replacement works as "normalize all input patterns to a full address form containing local part, and fixup missing local part as ?*."
And, patterns at here should be wildcard syntax not regexp. They will be converted to regexp patterns by post operations.
これは否定先読みを使った正規表現で、簡単に言うと、括弧の中の文字列「が無い」場合にのみマッチします。なので、この置換操作は「ローカルパートが無ければ?*@という文字列を付け足して、全項目をローカルパートありのパターンに正規化する」という結果になります。また、ここではまだワイルドカード構文のままでよくて、この後の操作で正規表現への変換を行うようになっています。（先の操作で補った?*@は、..*@に変換され、どんなローカルパートでも受け入れるという正規表現になります。この場合の正規表現は普通は.+@と書くところだとは思いますが、この操作の時点ではワイルドカード構文で表現する必要があるということで、こうなっています。）
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(?![^@]+@)is a negative lookahead assertion, so the regexp means "at the start position of the string, there is a-or not, and next to that, there is no part matching to[^@]+@(any local part)." So it will match toexample.combut won't match to[email protected]. As the result, the replacement works as "normalize all input patterns to a full address form containing local part, and fixup missing local part as?*."
Ah, OK, I understand. it seems good, thanks.
And, patterns at here should be wildcard syntax not regexp. They will be converted to regexp patterns by post operations.
Do we need the first ? for wildcard syntax?
I mean it seems that we can use *@example.com instead of ?*@exmple.com.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, *@exmple.com (to be converted to .*@example.com) is also acceptable. I was just afraid about invalid addresses like @example.com (missing local part.) Such invalid addresses will be rejected by Thunderbird itself, so we don't need to take care them here, so I agree it should be *@.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok, if ?*@exmple.com works fine, I think it was already confirmed by executing tests, I have no objection about using ?*.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've pushed a change to simplify the normalized result.
|
The code looks good to me and I have tested this on Thunderbird, it seems to work fine. |
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
N/A
What this PR does / why we need it:
Currently this addon supports only matching with the domain part of recipients.
This PR adds support to define patterns containing local part.
You need to write patterns with local part with the special delimiter
@, in other words, patterns without@are treated as just domain patterns for backward compatibility.How to verify the fixed issue:
Try to define patterns with local part and verify that matched recipients are detected as expected.
The steps to verify:
gmail.comis not an internal domain.[email protected], you should addpiro*@gmail.com.Expected result:
Your address matching to the pattern is detected as an internal domain recipient in the confirmation dialog.