From: Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org>
To: Dmitry Kurochkin <dmitry.kurochkin@gmail.com>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] test: `notmuch-show-advance-and-archive' with
	invisible signature
In-Reply-To: <87pqlxw7d0.fsf@gmail.com>
References: <1309312132-14564-1-git-send-email-dmitry.kurochkin@gmail.com>
	<87pqlxw7d0.fsf@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.5-232-g917e874 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.1.1
	(i686-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 08:25:06 +0000
Message-ID: <87ei2dujrx.fsf@nikula.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Precedence: list

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 09:10:19 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin <dmitry.kurochkin@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 05:48:50 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin <dmitry.kurochkin@gmail.com> wrote:
> > This patch series fixes the bug reported by Sebastien in [1].  I
> > was able to reproduce it and confirm that the second patch from
> > this series fixes the problem.  Unfortunately, I can not explain
> > why it fixes it.  The patch uses a cleaner approach for visible
> > text search.  But the old approach should work fine as well.
> > Apparently, it does not work when `invisible' property is not a
> > single symbol but a list (which was changed in
> > 95ef8da29439f2e79115c36ab4d2a80aef1a1462).  I suspect that it is
> > an Emacs bug.  I plan to look at it later.
> > 
> 
> Turns out that `point-invisible-p' is a function from notmuch-lib.el, I
> did not realize that before.  It implements a custom visibility check
> which is incomplete and does not work correctly when `invisible'
> property is a list.  That is why the previous code (which used
> `point-invisible-p') had the bug.  I sent another patch that removes
> `point-invisible-p' function.
> 
> > Another issue is that the test does not demonstrate the bug.
> > Again, I do not really know why.  It passes both before and after
> > the fix.  Although if I run the test commands by hand I hit the
> > bug.  I guess it has something to do with emacs daemon mode when
> > the buffer is not visible.  I hope someone with a better elisp
> > knowledge can tell what is going on and how to make the test
> > work.
> > 
> 
> Now it is clear where the bug was.  Remaining question is how to test
> it.

Hi, I applied the series, and I can confirm it fixes the bug. Hiding of
messages also seems to work as expected, including the un-hidden
signatures, which is what the commit that introduced this bug originally
fixed. Many thanks. I have no insights on the automated tests, though.

Jani