1 Return-Path: <m.walters@qmul.ac.uk>
\r
2 X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
3 Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
4 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
\r
5 by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FC5D431FBD
\r
6 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 15:18:40 -0800 (PST)
\r
7 X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org
\r
11 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5
\r
12 tests=[DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
\r
13 NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=1.2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=disabled
\r
14 Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1])
\r
15 by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
\r
16 with ESMTP id S9DcaozIHjMk for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;
\r
17 Thu, 2 Feb 2012 15:18:39 -0800 (PST)
\r
18 Received: from mail2.qmul.ac.uk (mail2.qmul.ac.uk [138.37.6.6])
\r
19 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
\r
20 (No client certificate requested)
\r
21 by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 24F0E431FAF
\r
22 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 15:18:39 -0800 (PST)
\r
23 Received: from smtp.qmul.ac.uk ([138.37.6.40])
\r
24 by mail2.qmul.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
\r
25 (envelope-from <m.walters@qmul.ac.uk>)
\r
26 id 1Rt5vJ-0001vN-6i; Thu, 02 Feb 2012 23:18:37 +0000
\r
27 Received: from 94-192-233-223.zone6.bethere.co.uk ([94.192.233.223]
\r
29 by smtp.qmul.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69)
\r
30 (envelope-from <m.walters@qmul.ac.uk>)
\r
31 id 1Rt5vI-0002rG-M0; Thu, 02 Feb 2012 23:18:36 +0000
\r
32 From: Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com>
\r
33 To: Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org, amdragon@MIT.EDU
\r
34 Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 08/11] cli: Make notmuch-show respect excludes.
\r
35 In-Reply-To: <87aa50ygkk.fsf@nikula.org>
\r
36 References: <874nv9rv79.fsf@qmul.ac.uk>
\r
37 <1328204619-25046-8-git-send-email-markwalters1009@gmail.com>
\r
38 <87haz8yjkv.fsf@nikula.org> <87y5skrhi9.fsf@qmul.ac.uk>
\r
39 <87aa50ygkk.fsf@nikula.org>
\r
40 User-Agent: Notmuch/0.11+140~gb5e1cf0 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.2.1
\r
42 Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 23:19:45 +0000
\r
43 Message-ID: <87vcnorffy.fsf@qmul.ac.uk>
\r
45 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
\r
46 X-Sender-Host-Address: 94.192.233.223
\r
47 X-QM-SPAM-Info: Sender has good ham record. :)
\r
48 X-QM-Body-MD5: 76618db4bb00db037f1fa2956c6f31b1 (of first 20000 bytes)
\r
49 X-SpamAssassin-Score: -1.8
\r
50 X-SpamAssassin-SpamBar: -
\r
51 X-SpamAssassin-Report: The QM spam filters have analysed this message to
\r
53 spam. We require at least 5.0 points to mark a message as spam.
\r
54 This message scored -1.8 points.
\r
55 Summary of the scoring:
\r
56 * -2.3 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
\r
58 * [138.37.6.40 listed in list.dnswl.org]
\r
59 * 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail
\r
60 provider * (markwalters1009[at]gmail.com)
\r
61 * -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
\r
63 * 0.5 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
\r
64 X-QM-Scan-Virus: ClamAV says the message is clean
\r
65 X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
66 X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
\r
68 List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."
\r
69 <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>
\r
70 List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,
\r
71 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>
\r
72 List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>
\r
73 List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
\r
74 List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>
\r
75 List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,
\r
76 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>
\r
77 X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 23:18:40 -0000
\r
79 On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 01:13:31 +0200, Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org> wrote:
\r
80 > On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 22:35:10 +0000, Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com> wrote:
\r
82 > > On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 00:08:32 +0200, Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org> wrote:
\r
83 > > > On Thu, 2 Feb 2012 17:43:36 +0000, Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com> wrote:
\r
84 > > > > This adds the excludes to notmuch-show.c. We do not exclude when only
\r
85 > > > > a single message (or part) is requested. notmuch-show will output the
\r
86 > > > > exclude information when either text or json format is requested. As
\r
87 > > > > this changes the output from notmuch-show it breaks many tests (in a
\r
88 > > > > trivial and expected fashion).
\r
90 > > > > notmuch-show.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++----
\r
91 > > > > 1 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
\r
93 > > > > diff --git a/notmuch-show.c b/notmuch-show.c
\r
94 > > > > index dec799c..108f13b 100644
\r
95 > > > > --- a/notmuch-show.c
\r
96 > > > > +++ b/notmuch-show.c
\r
97 > > > > @@ -193,10 +193,11 @@ _get_one_line_summary (const void *ctx, notmuch_message_t *message)
\r
99 > > > > format_message_text (unused (const void *ctx), notmuch_message_t *message, int indent)
\r
101 > > > > - printf ("id:%s depth:%d match:%d filename:%s\n",
\r
102 > > > > + printf ("id:%s depth:%d match:%d excluded:%d filename:%s\n",
\r
103 > > > > notmuch_message_get_message_id (message),
\r
105 > > > > - notmuch_message_get_flag (message, NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_MATCH),
\r
106 > > > > + notmuch_message_get_flag (message, NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_MATCH) ? 1 : 0,
\r
107 > > > > + notmuch_message_get_flag (message, NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_EXCLUDED) ? 1 : 0,
\r
108 > > > > notmuch_message_get_filename (message));
\r
111 > > > > @@ -212,9 +213,10 @@ format_message_json (const void *ctx, notmuch_message_t *message, unused (int in
\r
112 > > > > date = notmuch_message_get_date (message);
\r
113 > > > > relative_date = notmuch_time_relative_date (ctx, date);
\r
115 > > > > - printf ("\"id\": %s, \"match\": %s, \"filename\": %s, \"timestamp\": %ld, \"date_relative\": \"%s\", \"tags\": [",
\r
116 > > > > + printf ("\"id\": %s, \"match\": %s, \"excluded\": %s, \"filename\": %s, \"timestamp\": %ld, \"date_relative\": \"%s\", \"tags\": [",
\r
117 > > > > json_quote_str (ctx_quote, notmuch_message_get_message_id (message)),
\r
118 > > > > notmuch_message_get_flag (message, NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_MATCH) ? "true" : "false",
\r
119 > > > > + notmuch_message_get_flag (message, NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_EXCLUDED) ? "true" : "false",
\r
120 > > > > json_quote_str (ctx_quote, notmuch_message_get_filename (message)),
\r
121 > > > > date, relative_date);
\r
123 > > > > @@ -1059,9 +1061,13 @@ notmuch_show_command (void *ctx, unused (int argc), unused (char *argv[]))
\r
125 > > > > const notmuch_show_format_t *format = &format_text;
\r
126 > > > > notmuch_show_params_t params;
\r
127 > > > > + const char **search_exclude_tags;
\r
128 > > > > + size_t search_exclude_tags_length;
\r
130 > > > Please move these within the if (!no_exclude) block.
\r
132 > > Will do. (I forgot to move them in notmuch-show when doing notmuch-count
\r
133 > > and notmuch-search)
\r
135 > > > > int mbox = 0;
\r
136 > > > > int format_specified = 0;
\r
138 > > > > + notmuch_bool_t no_exclude = FALSE;
\r
139 > > > > + unsigned int j;
\r
141 > > > Same. Or better yet, reuse i.
\r
145 > > > > params.entire_thread = 0;
\r
146 > > > > params.raw = 0;
\r
147 > > > > @@ -1098,6 +1104,8 @@ notmuch_show_command (void *ctx, unused (int argc), unused (char *argv[]))
\r
148 > > > > params.part = atoi(argv[i] + sizeof ("--part=") - 1);
\r
149 > > > > } else if (STRNCMP_LITERAL (argv[i], "--entire-thread") == 0) {
\r
150 > > > > params.entire_thread = 1;
\r
151 > > > > + } else if (STRNCMP_LITERAL (argv[i], "--no-exclude") == 0) {
\r
152 > > > > + no_exclude = TRUE;
\r
153 > > > > } else if ((STRNCMP_LITERAL (argv[i], "--verify") == 0) ||
\r
154 > > > > (STRNCMP_LITERAL (argv[i], "--decrypt") == 0)) {
\r
155 > > > > if (params.cryptoctx == NULL) {
\r
156 > > > > @@ -1167,10 +1175,18 @@ notmuch_show_command (void *ctx, unused (int argc), unused (char *argv[]))
\r
157 > > > > if (params.raw && params.part < 0)
\r
158 > > > > params.part = 0;
\r
160 > > > > + /* If a single message is requested we do not use search_excludes. */
\r
161 > > > > if (params.part >= 0)
\r
162 > > > > return do_show_single (ctx, query, format, ¶ms);
\r
166 > > > Nitpick: There's no rule about this, but I do like the style of using
\r
167 > > > braces for both branches if either branch needs them.
\r
171 > > > > + if (!no_exclude) {
\r
172 > > > > + search_exclude_tags = notmuch_config_get_search_exclude_tags
\r
173 > > > > + (config, &search_exclude_tags_length);
\r
174 > > > > + for (j = 0; j < search_exclude_tags_length; j++)
\r
175 > > > > + notmuch_query_add_tag_exclude (query, search_exclude_tags[j]);
\r
177 > > > > return do_show (ctx, query, format, ¶ms);
\r
180 > > > Hmm, unreachable code below. Why doesn't the compiler complain?
\r
182 > > Yes I wondered about that (id:"20120120171801.GA16740@mit.edu"): but didn't think I should do anything about
\r
183 > > that in this series.
\r
185 > I'll send patches to fix that along with converting notmuch-show to the
\r
186 > new style argument parsing in a day or two. I didn't like you adding
\r
187 > options to old style parsing, but also didn't think it reasonable to ask
\r
188 > you to fix it in this series. I might have to ask you to rebase if my
\r
189 > patches get in first, though. ;)
\r
191 That's great: I looked at the impressive spaghetti argument parsing and
\r
192 couldn't face trying to convert it. I am very happy to rebase on top of
\r