From: Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com>
To: Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org, amdragon@MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 07/11] lib: added interface
	notmuch_thread_get_flag_messages
In-Reply-To: <87k444yk6i.fsf@nikula.org>
References: <874nv9rv79.fsf@qmul.ac.uk>
	<1328204619-25046-7-git-send-email-markwalters1009@gmail.com>
	<87k444yk6i.fsf@nikula.org>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.11+140~gb5e1cf0 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.2.1
	(i486-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 22:27:36 +0000
Message-ID: <871uqcswfb.fsf@qmul.ac.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Precedence: list

On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 23:55:33 +0200, Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Mark -
> 
> This is my first look at any version of the series; apologies if I'm
> clueless about some details... Please find some comments below.
> 
> BR,
> Jani.
> 
> 
> On Thu,  2 Feb 2012 17:43:35 +0000, Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The function is
> > notmuch_thread_get_flag_messages
> > (notmuch_thread_t *thread, unsigned int flag_mask, unsigned int flags)
> > 
> > and returns the number of messages with the specified flags on flag_mask.
> 
> Is the purpose of this function to get the count of messages that have
> certain flags set, certain flags not set, and certain flags don't-care?

Yes: I was trying to follow Austin's suggestion from
id:"20120124025331.GZ16740@mit.edu" (although stupidly I didn't
follow his suggestion of a function name).

> At the very least, I think the documentation of the function should be
> greatly improved.
> 
> I think the name of the function should be notmuch_thread_count_messages
> which is like notmuch_query_count_messages, but for messages in threads
> (and with some extra restrictions).

Yes I like your name; before I change it do you (and others) prefer it
to Austin's suggestion of notmuch_thread_count_flags. Or we could even
be more verbose with something like
notmuch_thread_count_messages_with_flags

> >  /* Message flags */
> >  typedef enum _notmuch_message_flag {
> > -    NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_MATCH,
> > -    NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_EXCLUDED
> > +    NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_MATCH = (1<<0),
> > +    NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_EXCLUDED = (1<<1),
> > +    NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_MAX  = (1<<2)
> 
> How are these used by the current lib users at the moment? How will they
> break with this change?

The only existing flag is NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_MATCH: that is currently
zero but in the current code that is the bit offset of the flag; in my
version it is the actual bit for the flag (otherwise I think flag masks
end up very ugly). I believe all callers use notmuch_message_set_flag
and notmuch_message_get_flag so they should not notice the difference.

> Please align the assignments. 

Will do.

> > @@ -457,8 +452,8 @@ _notmuch_thread_create (void *ctx,
> >      thread->message_hash = g_hash_table_new_full (g_str_hash, g_str_equal,
> >  						  free, NULL);
> >  
> > -    thread->total_messages = 0;
> > -    thread->matched_messages = 0;
> > +    for (i = 0; i < NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_MAX; i++)
> > +	thread->flag_count_messages[i] = 0;
> 
> memset (thread->flag_count_messages, 0, sizeof(thread->flag_count_messages));


Will do 

> >      thread->oldest = 0;
> >      thread->newest = 0;
> >  
> > @@ -473,6 +468,7 @@ _notmuch_thread_create (void *ctx,
> >  	 notmuch_messages_move_to_next (messages))
> >      {
> >  	unsigned int doc_id;
> > +	unsigned int message_flags;
> >  
> >  	message = notmuch_messages_get (messages);
> >  	doc_id = _notmuch_message_get_doc_id (message);
> > @@ -485,6 +481,10 @@ _notmuch_thread_create (void *ctx,
> >  	    _notmuch_doc_id_set_remove (match_set, doc_id);
> >  	    _thread_add_matched_message (thread, message, sort);
> >  	}
> > +	message_flags =
> > +	    notmuch_message_get_flag (message, NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_MATCH) |
> > +	    notmuch_message_get_flag (message, NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_EXCLUDED);
> > +	thread->flag_count_messages[message_flags]++;
> 
> The first impression of using a set of flags as index is that there's a
> bug. But this is to keep count of messages with certain flag sets rather
> than total for each flag, right? I think this needs more comments, more
> documentation. Already naming the field flag_set_message_counts or
> similar would help greatly.

I will try and document it better: on first reading I parsed your name
as flag set (as verb) message counts whereas I assume you mean "flag
set" as a noun! I will see if I can come up with something though.

> >  	_notmuch_message_close (message);
> >      }
> > @@ -511,15 +511,28 @@ notmuch_thread_get_thread_id (notmuch_thread_t *thread)
> >  }
> >  
> >  int
> > +notmuch_thread_get_flag_messages (notmuch_thread_t *thread, unsigned int flag_mask, unsigned int flags)
> > +{
> > +    unsigned int i;
> > +    int count = 0;
> > +    for (i = 0; i < NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_MAX; i++)
> 
> ARRAY_SIZE (thread->flag_count_messages)

ok

> 
> > +	if ((i & flag_mask) == (flags & flag_mask))
> > +	    count += thread->flag_count_messages[i];
> > +    return count;
> > +}
> 
> I wonder if the same could be accomplished by using two flag mask
> parameters, include_flag_mask and exclude_flag_mask. I'm thinking of the
> usage, would it be easier to use:
> 
> notmuch_query_count_messages (thread, NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_MATCH, NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_EXCLUDED);
> 
> to get number of messages that have MATCH but not EXCLUDED? 0 as
> include_flag_mask could still be special for "all", and you could use:
> 
> notmuch_query_count_messages (thread, 0, NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_EXCLUDED);
> 
> Note the name change according to my earlier suggestion. It might be
> wise to not export the function before the API is chrystal clear if
> there is no pressing need to do so.

(I assume you mean notmuch_thread_count_messages.) Can I just check this
would return the number of messages which have all the flags  in
include_flag_mask and none of the flags in exclude_flag_mask?

I completely agree about leaving it until we have the API well worked
out. I wrote it in response to Austin's suggestion and then it looked
like it would useful in my attempts to remove the
notmuch_query_set_omit_excluded_messages API. However, those attempts
failed so it doesn't have any users yet.

Best wishes

Mark