From: Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com>
To: Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org, amdragon@MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 08/11] cli: Make notmuch-show respect excludes.
In-Reply-To: <87aa50ygkk.fsf@nikula.org>
References: <874nv9rv79.fsf@qmul.ac.uk>
	<1328204619-25046-8-git-send-email-markwalters1009@gmail.com>
	<87haz8yjkv.fsf@nikula.org> <87y5skrhi9.fsf@qmul.ac.uk>
	<87aa50ygkk.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 23:19:45 +0000
Message-ID: <87vcnorffy.fsf@qmul.ac.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Precedence: list

On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 01:13:31 +0200, Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 22:35:10 +0000, Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 00:08:32 +0200, Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org> wrote:
> > > On Thu,  2 Feb 2012 17:43:36 +0000, Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > This adds the excludes to notmuch-show.c. We do not exclude when only
> > > > a single message (or part) is requested. notmuch-show will output the
> > > > exclude information when either text or json format is requested. As
> > > > this changes the output from notmuch-show it breaks many tests (in a
> > > > trivial and expected fashion).
> > > > ---
> > > >  notmuch-show.c |   24 ++++++++++++++++++++----
> > > >  1 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/notmuch-show.c b/notmuch-show.c
> > > > index dec799c..108f13b 100644
> > > > --- a/notmuch-show.c
> > > > +++ b/notmuch-show.c
> > > > @@ -193,10 +193,11 @@ _get_one_line_summary (const void *ctx, notmuch_message_t *message)
> > > >  static void
> > > >  format_message_text (unused (const void *ctx), notmuch_message_t *message, int indent)
> > > >  {
> > > > -    printf ("id:%s depth:%d match:%d filename:%s\n",
> > > > +    printf ("id:%s depth:%d match:%d excluded:%d filename:%s\n",
> > > >  	    notmuch_message_get_message_id (message),
> > > >  	    indent,
> > > > -	    notmuch_message_get_flag (message, NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_MATCH),
> > > > +	    notmuch_message_get_flag (message, NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_MATCH) ? 1 : 0,
> > > > +	    notmuch_message_get_flag (message, NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_EXCLUDED) ? 1 : 0,
> > > >  	    notmuch_message_get_filename (message));
> > > >  }
> > > >  
> > > > @@ -212,9 +213,10 @@ format_message_json (const void *ctx, notmuch_message_t *message, unused (int in
> > > >      date = notmuch_message_get_date (message);
> > > >      relative_date = notmuch_time_relative_date (ctx, date);
> > > >  
> > > > -    printf ("\"id\": %s, \"match\": %s, \"filename\": %s, \"timestamp\": %ld, \"date_relative\": \"%s\", \"tags\": [",
> > > > +    printf ("\"id\": %s, \"match\": %s, \"excluded\": %s, \"filename\": %s, \"timestamp\": %ld, \"date_relative\": \"%s\", \"tags\": [",
> > > >  	    json_quote_str (ctx_quote, notmuch_message_get_message_id (message)),
> > > >  	    notmuch_message_get_flag (message, NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_MATCH) ? "true" : "false",
> > > > +	    notmuch_message_get_flag (message, NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_EXCLUDED) ? "true" : "false",
> > > >  	    json_quote_str (ctx_quote, notmuch_message_get_filename (message)),
> > > >  	    date, relative_date);
> > > >  
> > > > @@ -1059,9 +1061,13 @@ notmuch_show_command (void *ctx, unused (int argc), unused (char *argv[]))
> > > >      char *opt;
> > > >      const notmuch_show_format_t *format = &format_text;
> > > >      notmuch_show_params_t params;
> > > > +    const char **search_exclude_tags;
> > > > +    size_t search_exclude_tags_length;
> > > 
> > > Please move these within the if (!no_exclude) block.
> > 
> > Will do. (I forgot to move them in notmuch-show when doing notmuch-count
> > and notmuch-search)
> > 
> > > >      int mbox = 0;
> > > >      int format_specified = 0;
> > > >      int i;
> > > > +    notmuch_bool_t no_exclude = FALSE;
> > > > +    unsigned int j;
> > > 
> > > Same. Or better yet, reuse i.
> > 
> > Will do.
> > 
> > > >      params.entire_thread = 0;
> > > >      params.raw = 0;
> > > > @@ -1098,6 +1104,8 @@ notmuch_show_command (void *ctx, unused (int argc), unused (char *argv[]))
> > > >  	    params.part = atoi(argv[i] + sizeof ("--part=") - 1);
> > > >  	} else if (STRNCMP_LITERAL (argv[i], "--entire-thread") == 0) {
> > > >  	    params.entire_thread = 1;
> > > > +	} else if (STRNCMP_LITERAL (argv[i], "--no-exclude") == 0) {
> > > > +	    no_exclude = TRUE;
> > > >  	} else if ((STRNCMP_LITERAL (argv[i], "--verify") == 0) ||
> > > >  		   (STRNCMP_LITERAL (argv[i], "--decrypt") == 0)) {
> > > >  	    if (params.cryptoctx == NULL) {
> > > > @@ -1167,10 +1175,18 @@ notmuch_show_command (void *ctx, unused (int argc), unused (char *argv[]))
> > > >      if (params.raw && params.part < 0)
> > > >  	params.part = 0;
> > > >  
> > > > +    /* If a single message is requested we do not use search_excludes. */
> > > >      if (params.part >= 0)
> > > >  	return do_show_single (ctx, query, format, &params);
> > > > -    else
> > > > +    else {
> > > 
> > > Nitpick: There's no rule about this, but I do like the style of using
> > > braces for both branches if either branch needs them.
> > 
> > Will fix.
> > 
> > > > +	if (!no_exclude) {
> > > > +	    search_exclude_tags = notmuch_config_get_search_exclude_tags
> > > > +		(config, &search_exclude_tags_length);
> > > > +	    for (j = 0; j < search_exclude_tags_length; j++)
> > > > +		notmuch_query_add_tag_exclude (query, search_exclude_tags[j]);
> > > > +	}
> > > >  	return do_show (ctx, query, format, &params);
> > > > +    }
> > > 
> > > Hmm, unreachable code below. Why doesn't the compiler complain?
> > 
> > Yes I wondered about that (id:"20120120171801.GA16740@mit.edu"): but didn't think I should do anything about
> > that in this series.
> 
> I'll send patches to fix that along with converting notmuch-show to the
> new style argument parsing in a day or two. I didn't like you adding
> options to old style parsing, but also didn't think it reasonable to ask
> you to fix it in this series. I might have to ask you to rebase if my
> patches get in first, though. ;)

That's great: I looked at the impressive spaghetti argument parsing and
couldn't face trying to convert it. I am very happy to rebase on top of
your patch!

Best wishes

Mark