jstedfast / MimeKit / 4.14.0.1873

Builds Branch Commit Type Ran Committer Via Coverage
4.14.0.1873 master Add .NET 10 SDK installation to workflow Added installation step for .NET 10 SDK alongside .NET 8 SDK. push web-flow coveralls.net
94.17
4.14.0.1872 mime-compliance-violations Started adding encoding validation logic TODO: Should we have a different MimeComplianceViolation for each encoding? Or should we just have InvalidEncodedContent? What about a different enum value for each kind of invalid encoding state? push jstedfast coveralls.net
94.08
4.14.0.1871 mime-compliance-violations Started adding encoding validation logic TODO: Should we have a different MimeComplianceViolation for each encoding? Or should we just have InvalidEncodedContent? What about a different enum value for each kind of invalid encoding state? push jstedfast coveralls.net
94.08
4.14.0.1870 mime-compliance-violations Started adding encoding validation logic TODO: Should we have a different MimeComplianceViolation for each encoding? Or should we just have InvalidEncodedContent? What about a different enum value for each kind of invalid encoding state? push jstedfast coveralls.net
94.08
4.14.0.1869 mime-compliance-violations Started adding encoding validation logic TODO: Should we have a different MimeComplianceViolation for each encoding? Or should we just have InvalidEncodedContent? What about a different enum value for each kind of invalid encoding state? push jstedfast coveralls.net
94.08
4.14.0.1868 mime-compliance-violations Started adding encoding validation logic TODO: Should we have a different MimeComplianceViolation for each encoding? Or should we just have InvalidEncodedContent? What about a different enum value for each kind of invalid encoding state? push jstedfast coveralls.net
94.08
4.14.0.1867 mime-compliance-violations Started adding encoding validation logic TODO: Should we have a different MimeComplianceViolation for each encoding? Or should we just have InvalidEncodedContent? What about a different enum value for each kind of invalid encoding state? push jstedfast coveralls.net
94.07
4.14.0.1866 mime-compliance-violations Started adding encoding validation logic TODO: Should we have a different MimeComplianceViolation for each encoding? Or should we just have InvalidEncodedContent? What about a different enum value for each kind of invalid encoding state? push jstedfast coveralls.net
94.02
4.14.0.1865 mime-compliance-violations Started adding encoding validation logic TODO: This is incomplete * Needs more tests * Should we have a different MimeComplianceViolation for each encoding? Or should we just have InvalidEncodedContent? What about a different enum value for eac... push jstedfast coveralls.net
94.0
4.14.0.1864 mime-compliance-violations Started adding encoding validation logic TODO: This is incomplete * Needs more tests * Should we have a different MimeComplianceViolation for each encoding? Or should we just have InvalidEncodedContent? What about a different enum value for eac... push jstedfast coveralls.net
93.99
4.14.0.1863 mime-compliance-violations Started adding encoding validation logic TODO: This is incomplete * Needs more tests * Probably needs a Flush() method? * Should we have a different MimeComplianceViolation for each encoding? Or should we just have InvalidEncodedContent? push jstedfast coveralls.net
93.97
4.14.0.1862 mime-compliance-violations Refactored MimeComplianceStatus into MimeCOmplianceViolation push jstedfast coveralls.net
94.07
4.14.0.1857 master minor improvement to auth-results patches push jstedfast coveralls.net
94.08
4.14.0.1856 master Code cleanup push jstedfast coveralls.net
94.08
4.14.0.1849 master Added nullable attributes to the API (#1205) Many thanks to @daniel-lerch who did most of this work. Fixes issue #1067 push web-flow coveralls.net
94.08