--- /dev/null
+Return-Path: <novalazy@gmail.com>\r
+X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])\r
+ by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2035F431FAF\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 19:04:36 -0700 (PDT)\r
+X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org\r
+X-Spam-Flag: NO\r
+X-Spam-Score: -0.799\r
+X-Spam-Level: \r
+X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5\r
+ tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1,\r
+ FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=disabled\r
+Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1])\r
+ by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)\r
+ with ESMTP id 5slWtrzZ7RPR for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;\r
+ Sat, 20 Oct 2012 19:04:35 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: from mail-pb0-f53.google.com (mail-pb0-f53.google.com\r
+ [209.85.160.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))\r
+ (No client certificate requested)\r
+ by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81A0A431FAE\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 19:04:35 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: by mail-pb0-f53.google.com with SMTP id wz12so1476380pbc.26\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 19:04:34 -0700 (PDT)\r
+DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;\r
+ h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version\r
+ :content-type:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding;\r
+ bh=IbqX1BQP85/4YfMRbkEpnUEjcnCmgMZMJ2JVcHyVjBY=;\r
+ b=yOuJLiYLMNz6PXfdgRCqvkUOE1LJ1UjVuml4y47RS0wMHIg+xj+m4x99Ui15L04ehY\r
+ GTOe55yYbLkqkYLBbztr1DNj6FOI6XDoEMF8rlpqmZ9VN9qa97xZYg1I5J5Lo9lLCcSx\r
+ r2TIkGmjLvEkqURj5vTX7dl07snEpBTjmMUYJjx8cXkcEzR0+g+j6QWqeu72UAt3eEjo\r
+ mjDu9jSYEgmQtJs0EMChZ31rprvWyFZBaZQsun5n9UKzrZI0bJwXiVtGomgTGssCau0C\r
+ 2qvTEp2sSHF9lX3AE9AvyiCGTR1CZ4jRBeNzVx3nLTT2c9OWoXiO4pXipau/OoQfD4ei\r
+ 3btg==\r
+Received: by 10.68.222.226 with SMTP id qp2mr9242477pbc.53.1350785074586;\r
+ Sat, 20 Oct 2012 19:04:34 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: from localhost (215.42.233.220.static.exetel.com.au.\r
+ [220.233.42.215])\r
+ by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ju7sm3603077pbb.60.2012.10.20.19.04.32\r
+ (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);\r
+ Sat, 20 Oct 2012 19:04:33 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 13:04:27 +1100\r
+Message-ID: <20121021130427.GA4820@hili.localdomain>\r
+From: Peter Wang <novalazy@gmail.com>\r
+To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] lib: add NOTMUCH_EXCLUDE_FLAG to notmuch_exclude_t\r
+In-Reply-To: <87txtr6o0c.fsf@betacantrips.com>\r
+References: <1340198947-29370-1-git-send-email-novalazy@gmail.com>\r
+ <1340198947-29370-8-git-send-email-novalazy@gmail.com>\r
+ <87txtr6o0c.fsf@betacantrips.com>\r
+MIME-Version: 1.0\r
+Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8\r
+Content-Disposition: inline\r
+Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit\r
+X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13\r
+Precedence: list\r
+List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."\r
+ <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>\r
+List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,\r
+ <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>\r
+List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>\r
+List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>\r
+List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>\r
+List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,\r
+ <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>\r
+X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 02:04:36 -0000\r
+\r
+On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 01:15:31 -0400, Ethan Glasser-Camp <ethan.glasser.camp@gmail.com> wrote:\r
+> Peter Wang <novalazy@gmail.com> writes:\r
+> \r
+> > Add NOTMUCH_EXCLUDE_FLAG to notmuch_exclude_t so that it can\r
+> > cover all four values of search --exclude in the cli.\r
+> \r
+> This series looks good to me. It's a nice clean up and a nice new\r
+> feature. Patches all apply.\r
+\r
+Thanks for the review.\r
+\r
+> However, I'm getting test failures like:\r
+> \r
+> FAIL Search, exclude "deleted" messages from message search --exclude=false\r
+> --- excludes.3.expected 2012-10-19 04:45:06.900518377 +0000\r
+> +++ excludes.3.output 2012-10-19 04:45:06.900518377 +0000\r
+> @@ -1,2 +1,2 @@\r
+> -id:msg-001@notmuch-test-suite\r
+> id:msg-002@notmuch-test-suite\r
+> +id:msg-001@notmuch-test-suite\r
+> \r
+> FAIL Search, don't exclude "deleted" messages when --exclude=flag specified\r
+> --- excludes.7.expected 2012-10-19 04:45:07.004518378 +0000\r
+> +++ excludes.7.output 2012-10-19 04:45:07.004518378 +0000\r
+> @@ -1,2 +1,2 @@\r
+> -thread:XXX 2001-01-05 [1/1] Notmuch Test Suite; Not deleted (inbox unread)\r
+> thread:XXX 2001-01-05 [1/2] Notmuch Test Suite; Not deleted reply (deleted inbox unread)\r
+> +thread:XXX 2001-01-05 [1/1] Notmuch Test Suite; Not deleted (inbox unread)\r
+> \r
+> FAIL Search, don't exclude "deleted" messages from search if not configured\r
+> --- excludes.8.expected 2012-10-19 04:45:07.028518377 +0000\r
+> +++ excludes.8.output 2012-10-19 04:45:07.028518377 +0000\r
+> @@ -1,2 +1,2 @@\r
+> -thread:XXX 2001-01-05 [1/1] Notmuch Test Suite; Not deleted (inbox unread)\r
+> thread:XXX 2001-01-05 [2/2] Notmuch Test Suite; Deleted (deleted inbox unread)\r
+> +thread:XXX 2001-01-05 [1/1] Notmuch Test Suite; Not deleted (inbox unread)\r
+> \r
+> In other words, threads and messages are coming up out of order. I'm not\r
+> sure of the right way to fix this. If you would like me to try sticking\r
+> "| sort" here and there in the tests I will do so. I'm not sure if the\r
+> test suite is guaranteed to scan messages in a certain order.\r
+\r
+Does it help if you add a "sleep 1" before the second generate_message\r
+call, i.e. on line 35?\r
+\r
+> > - if (query->omit_excluded != NOTMUCH_EXCLUDE_FALSE)\r
+> > + if (query->omit_excluded == NOTMUCH_EXCLUDE_TRUE ||\r
+> > + query->omit_excluded == NOTMUCH_EXCLUDE_ALL)\r
+> > + {\r
+> > final_query = Xapian::Query (Xapian::Query::OP_AND_NOT,\r
+> > final_query, exclude_query);\r
+> > - else {\r
+> > + } else {\r
+> \r
+> "House style" is to not put braces around one-line then-clauses. This is\r
+> the only place where you did that.\r
+\r
+I have to disagree. The condition is wrapped over two lines. The then\r
+part is wrapped over two lines. The else part already has braces.\r
+All suggest braces around the then part.\r
+\r
+Peter\r
projects / notmuch-archives.git / commitdiff