From: Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com>
To: Austin Clements <amdragon@MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] cli: Make notmuch-show respect excludes.
In-Reply-To: <20120131045624.GB17991@mit.edu>
References: <8762fu4aqt.fsf@qmul.ac.uk>
	<1327862394-14334-5-git-send-email-markwalters1009@gmail.com>
	<20120131045624.GB17991@mit.edu>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.11+137~g98adc3d (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.2.1
	(i486-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:30:35 +0000
Message-ID: <87sjiwcavo.fsf@qmul.ac.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Precedence: list

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 23:56:24 -0500, Austin Clements <amdragon@MIT.EDU> wrote:
> Quoth Mark Walters on Jan 29 at  6:39 pm:
> > 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 |   26 +++++++++++++++++++++-----
> >  1 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/notmuch-show.c b/notmuch-show.c
> > index dec799c..681827f 100644
> > --- a/notmuch-show.c
> > +++ b/notmuch-show.c
> > @@ -193,10 +193,12 @@ _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",
> > +    /* Could changing this could break users ? */
> 
> I don't think anybody seriously tries to parse the text format, so I
> wouldn't worry about breaking anything.

Right: I will remove the comment.

> > +    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 +214,10 @@ 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\": [",
> 
> I wonder if it would be better to switch to an array of flag names...
> That obviously would break consumers, but it's worth thinking about in
> the longer term.

Unless you have a strong feeling for this I will leave that for a later
patch.

> >  	    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 +1062,13 @@ 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;
> >      int mbox = 0;
> >      int format_specified = 0;
> >      int i;
> > +    notmuch_bool_t do_not_exclude = FALSE;
> > +    unsigned int j;
> >  
> >      params.entire_thread = 0;
> >      params.raw = 0;
> > @@ -1098,6 +1105,8 @@ 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], "--do-not-exclude") == 0) {
> > +	    do_not_exclude = TRUE;
> 
> "no-exclude" if you change the others.

See comment on first patch: will make sure they are consistent.

> >  	} else if ((STRNCMP_LITERAL (argv[i], "--verify") == 0) ||
> >  		   (STRNCMP_LITERAL (argv[i], "--decrypt") == 0)) {
> >  	    if (params.cryptoctx == NULL) {
> > @@ -1105,7 +1114,7 @@ notmuch_show_command (void *ctx, unused (int argc), unused (char *argv[]))
> >  		/* TODO: GMimePasswordRequestFunc */
> >  		if (NULL == (params.cryptoctx = g_mime_gpg_context_new(NULL, "gpg")))
> >  #else
> > -		GMimeSession* session = g_object_new(g_mime_session_get_type(), NULL);
> > +		    GMimeSession* session = g_object_new(g_mime_session_get_type(), NULL);
> 
> Accidental reindent?

Yes will fix.

> >  		if (NULL == (params.cryptoctx = g_mime_gpg_context_new(session, "gpg")))
> >  #endif
> >  		    fprintf (stderr, "Failed to construct gpg context.\n");
> > @@ -1167,10 +1176,17 @@ 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 */
> 
> Capital and period.

Will fix.

> >      if (params.part >= 0)
> >  	return do_show_single (ctx, query, format, &params);
> >      else
> > -	return do_show (ctx, query, format, &params);
> > +	if (!do_not_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);
> > +	}
> 
> I don't think this is the control flow you meant.  With
> --do-not-exclude, there won't be any output.

Good catch! Will fix.

Thanks 

Mark