Add support for data items (not just body part specifiers) in ->get#6
Merged
Conversation
see https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3501#section-6.4.5 for examples Note: some data items may be recognised as body part specifiers; to work around that, wrap them in parentheses
This reverts commit 7bd48d6. In order not to break the API and preseve the wrapping in "BODY[...]" behaviour, leave ->get alone, but introduce another method ->fetch, which only sets $part to RFC822 if the $part is missing, but doesn't wrap anything. Conflicts: Simple.pm
Contributor
Author
|
It looks like changing the "BODY[...]" wrapping behavior of ->get is going to break some apps no matter what. Could adding another method which doesn't wrap be a solution? |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
See https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3501#section-6.4.5 for examples.
Note: some data items may be recognised as body part specifiers. We may end up creating another method to FETCH messages' data items because distinguishing data items/body part specifiers may require parsing IMAP requests. For example,
this is a data item: (FLAGS BODY[HEADER.FIELDS (DATE FROM)])
this is a data item: (FLAGS INTERNALDATE RFC822.SIZE)
this is a data item: BODYSTRUCTURE
this is a body part specifier: HEADER.FIELDS (DATE FROM)
this is a body part specifier: 4.2.TEXT