*** Original post on bio 2242 at 2013-11-09 23:17:00 UTC *** Having "blahblah\n/me action" in the input box and sending causes us to send "/me" instead of whatever we are expected to send.

*** Original post on bio 2242 at 2013-11-09 23:23:41 UTC *** Just to be clear, does this cause us to send an ACTION message or are we just displaying it as an action (because of our plaintext parsing of /me) on the incoming message?

*** Original post on bio 2242 at 2013-11-09 23:29:54 UTC *** (In reply to comment #1) > Just to be clear, does this cause us to send an ACTION message No. > are we just > displaying it as an action (because of our plaintext parsing of /me) on the > incoming message? We are. But other IRC clients (like instantbot's logs) aren't.

*** Original post on bio 2242 at 2013-11-09 23:38:39 UTC *** This vaguely sounds like a regression from bug 955045 (bio 1615).

What's the expected result of this?

The expected result is that typing blah<enter>/me tests<enter> or blah<shift+enter>/me tests<enter> sends the same thing.

Hi, Is this bug still reproducable? and by blah\n/me action you mean blah<shift+enter>/me tests<enter>?

Yes, this is still reproducible, you can't see it on Instantbird because of a different bug, unfortunately. Typing "blah\n/me action" (yes, you end \n using shift+enter) sends two messages: PRIVMSG #ib-test blah PRIVMSG #ib-test :/me action It should send: PRIVMSG #ib-test blah PRIVMSG #ib-test :\x01ACTION action\x01

this works, but it touches the same functions as couple of my previous functions, So this will need some discussion.

Presumably, this is a more general problem for commands and not just action msgs?

arlolra, it's an issue for commands, yes. I think this actually used to work when we did splitting by lines in the UI instead of in the prpl...

Comment on attachment 8829245 [details] [diff] [review] v1.patch Review of attachment 8829245 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- I don't really like the behavior of this. I don't think prpls should be doing command parsing themselves. We should probably talk about this on IRC.

Version 2: Split the messages at every line break before prpls get the control.

Comment on attachment 8841331 [details] [diff] [review] v2.patch Review of attachment 8841331 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hey Florian, do you remember why we *stopped* splitting lines in the UI? Or was it optional per protocol or something?

Comment on attachment 8841331 [details] [diff] [review] v2.patch (In reply to Patrick Cloke [:clokep] from comment #13) > Comment on attachment 8841331 [details] [diff] [review] > v2.patch > > Review of attachment 8841331 [details] [diff] [review]: > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Hey Florian, do you remember why we *stopped* splitting lines in the UI? Or > was it optional per protocol or something? I don't remember for sure, no. But if I had to make a guess I would say it was related to making our code more OTR friendly.

Comment on attachment 8841331 [details] [diff] [review] v2.patch I'm unsure this is the correct approach. Regardless this patch would need to be applied to the Thunderbird IM code now (mail/components/im).