Re: Introduction: Interested in contributing (Rx tooling)

Hello Mike,

Thank you for your pointers regarding the unit tests.

I was working through the Rx specification to understand the protocol 
better, but I had midterm exams recently and have not been able to spend 
much time on OpenAFS. Since my exams finish later this week, I will be 
able to resume exploring the codebase shortly.

I will start by looking at the tests in `tests/rx/simple-t` and use that 
to understand how Rx is currently tested. Thanks again for the guidance.

Thanking You,
Aaditya Joil (amberjojo on libera.chat)

On 3/11/26 12:56 AM, Michael Meffie wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Feb 2026 04:31:19 +0530
> Aaditya Joil <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> My name is Aaditya Joil, and I am a computer science student with an
>> interest in network programming and low-level systems.
>>
>> I recently started exploring OpenAFS and have set up a local test cell
>> (on Arch Linux), including configuring users and experimenting with
>> client/server setup. I’ve also read through the quick start guide and
>> portions of the administrator's and user’s guides to better understand
>> the architecture.
>>
>> I am particularly interested in the proposed project involving a netcat
>> like tool for the Rx protocol. As an initial step, I reviewed the
>> contributor guide and looked through the current github issues, but I am
>> unsure which areas would be appropriate for a new contributor to start with.
>>
>> Are there specific subsystems, smaller tasks, or documentation gaps that
>> would be good entry points while I continue learning the project's codebase?
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Aaditya Joil
> Hello Aaditya,
>
> Thank you for your interest in OpenAFS and reading the documentation.
>
> The 'netcat for Rx' is an interesting project idea. For starting points, I'd
> recommend looking at the current unit test suite for ideas, we can always use
> more tests. Since you are interested in rx, you could see the simple-t in
> tests/rx, which was recently added, to give you some ideas. That could be expanded
> or you could think about other tests.
>
> Best regards,
> Mike
>