From: Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com>
To: Tomi Ollila <tomi.ollila@iki.fi>, Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org>,
	John Lenz <lenz@math.uic.edu>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Subject: Re: cli: add --include-html option to notmuch show
In-Reply-To: <m2wqni7swv.fsf@guru.guru-group.fi>
References: <notmuch-web-1372724382.450184839@www.wuzzeb.org>
	<m27ggj1x29.fsf@guru.guru-group.fi>
	<notmuch-web-1374719771.1588310986@www.wuzzeb.org>
	<m2zjsxs0g1.fsf@guru.guru-group.fi>
	<notmuch-web-1376754748.336647450@www.wuzzeb.org>
	<87k3jjutpf.fsf@nikula.org> <m2wqni7swv.fsf@guru.guru-group.fi>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.15.2+192~g8222af3 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.4.1
	(x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2013 09:11:15 +0100
Message-ID: <87txifzexo.fsf@qmul.ac.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Precedence: list


Hi

Overall I like this patch.

On Sun, 18 Aug 2013, Tomi Ollila <tomi.ollila@iki.fi> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 18 2013, Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 17 Aug 2013, John Lenz <lenz@math.uic.edu> wrote:
>>> On Sun Aug  4 14:47 -0500 2013, Tomi Ollila <tomi.ollila@iki.fi> wrote:
>>>> The next question is should we have new option as
>>>> 
>>>> --include-html
>>>> 
>>>> or as
>>>> 
>>>> --include-html=(true|false)
>>>> 
>>>> or even
>>>> 
>>>> --body=(true|false|text-and-html)
>>>> 
>>>> See --exclude option in http://notmuchmail.org/manpages/notmuch-search-1/
>>>> and --body option in http://notmuchmail.org/manpages/notmuch-show-1/
>>>> for comparison...
>>>> 
>>>
>>> I have no preference here, although I guess I would vote for
>>> --include-html=(true|false) since adding it to --body makes the --body
>>> options confusing: to make sense the body options should be
>>> --body=(text|text-and-html|none) but of course you can't change that and
>>> break the command line API.  Well, maybe you could add all three
>>> --body=(text|text-and-html|none)  and still accept true/false for
>>> compatibility.
>>
>> Hi John & Tomi -
>>
>> We could trivially amend the argument parser to |= the keyword values
>> (instead of =) to allow specifying keywords arguments multiple times on
>> the command line. With the keyword values specified as bit flags, we
>> could then have 'notmuch show --body=text --body=html ...' return both
>> text and html, and allow trivial future extension too.
>>
>> --body=true and --body=false could be handled specially for backwards
>> compatibility, for example by forcing text only or no parts,
>> respectively. Since the default is currently text, --body=none might be
>> a suitable synonym for --body=false, while the boolean alternatives
>> could be deprecated.
>>
>> A little less trivially it's also possible to support e.g. comma
>> separated keyword values, such as --body=text,html but I do prefer the
>> (implementation) simplicity of the above.
>
> I've also thought along these lines (except this possibility to give 
> argument multiple times)...
>
> But when I wrote my first reply I did not realise that the default
> behaviour is to include all text/* parts *except* text/html. i.e.
> text/html is excluded as as special case (and non-excluded parts
> contain text/plain, text/calendar, text/whatnot etc...). 
>
> How to do clean interface/implementation using --body is not trivial
> (if possible). I played with options like
> false/none -- true/text/plain -- all/textall/* and came to a conclusion
> that maybe --include-html is the best option after all.
>
> Now, if we have --include-html should it be like that or 
> --include-html=(true|false). Currently we have both cases, adding
> --verify, --decrypt, --create-folder, --batch, -no-hooks to the
> set... I cannot get a clear opinion (without wast^H^H^H^H spending
> excessive amount of time figuring these out) how this should be,
> therefore I'm inclined to the opinion that
>
> the current patch from John with simple --include-html could be applied,
> and in the future (if it is of anyone's interest) we update the parser
> allowing boolean --arg equal --arg=true. Then it is just how we decide
> to document these...

I agree with Tomi on all of these points.

I think that with several patches floating around in this thread (the
original, some test, Tomi's modified tests) it would be good to have a
new candidate series submitted. I think it would get my +1.

Best wishes

Mark



>
> Tomi
>
>>
>> Untested patch to the argument parser below.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Jani.
>>
>>
>> diff --git a/command-line-arguments.c b/command-line-arguments.c
>> index bf9aeca..c426054 100644
>> --- a/command-line-arguments.c
>> +++ b/command-line-arguments.c
>> @@ -23,7 +23,10 @@ _process_keyword_arg (const notmuch_opt_desc_t *arg_desc, char next, const char
>>      while (keywords->name) {
>>  	if (strcmp (arg_str, keywords->name) == 0) {
>>  	    if (arg_desc->output_var) {
>> -		*((int *)arg_desc->output_var) = keywords->value;
>> +		if (arg_desc->opt_type == NOTMUCH_OPT_KEYWORD_FLAGS)
>> +		    *((int *)arg_desc->output_var) |= keywords->value;
>> +		else
>> +		    *((int *)arg_desc->output_var) = keywords->value;
>>  	    }
>>  	    return TRUE;
>>  	}
>> @@ -146,6 +149,7 @@ parse_option (const char *arg,
>>  
>>  	    switch (try->opt_type) {
>>  	    case NOTMUCH_OPT_KEYWORD:
>> +	    case NOTMUCH_OPT_KEYWORD_FLAGS:
>>  		return _process_keyword_arg (try, next, value);
>>  		break;
>>  	    case NOTMUCH_OPT_BOOLEAN:
>> diff --git a/command-line-arguments.h b/command-line-arguments.h
>> index de1734a..085a492 100644
>> --- a/command-line-arguments.h
>> +++ b/command-line-arguments.h
>> @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@ enum notmuch_opt_type {
>>      NOTMUCH_OPT_BOOLEAN,	/* --verbose              */
>>      NOTMUCH_OPT_INT,		/* --frob=8               */
>>      NOTMUCH_OPT_KEYWORD,	/* --format=raw|json|text */
>> +    NOTMUCH_OPT_KEYWORD_FLAGS,  /* the above with values OR'd together */
>>      NOTMUCH_OPT_STRING,		/* --file=/tmp/gnarf.txt  */
>>      NOTMUCH_OPT_POSITION	/* notmuch dump pos_arg   */
>>  };
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> notmuch mailing list
>> notmuch@notmuchmail.org
>> http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
> _______________________________________________
> notmuch mailing list
> notmuch@notmuchmail.org
> http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch