From: Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org>
To: David Bremner <david@tethera.net>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH =?utf-8?Q?3=C2=BD=2F9=5D?= test: notmuch address
 --deduplicate=no tests
In-Reply-To: <87a8shtg4w.fsf@maritornes.cs.unb.ca>
References:
 <fd59eadee26a770097517bee038e2b126e11aa90.1441308761.git.jani@nikula.org>
 <1441391716-17282-1-git-send-email-jani@nikula.org>
 <87a8shtg4w.fsf@maritornes.cs.unb.ca>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.20.2+66~gb33abd9 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.4.1
 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 21:56:11 +0300
Message-ID: <87mvwddkxg.fsf@nikula.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: list

On Sun, 20 Sep 2015, David Bremner <david@tethera.net> wrote:
> Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org> writes:
>
>> Test not using address deduplication. Incorporate some trivial output
>> sorting tests here, as they seem to lack tests.
>> ---
>>  test/T095-address.sh | 70 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 70 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/test/T095-address.sh b/test/T095-address.sh
>> index 8eecb2a6a7ba..f8d902cb3a5e 100755
>> --- a/test/T095-address.sh
>> +++ b/test/T095-address.sh
>> @@ -145,4 +145,74 @@ cat <<EOF >EXPECTED
>>  EOF
>>  test_expect_equal_file OUTPUT EXPECTED
>>  
>> +test_begin_subtest "--deduplicate=no --sort=oldest-first --output=sender"
>> +notmuch address --deduplicate=no --sort=oldest-first --output=sender '*' >OUTPUT
>> +cat <<EOF >EXPECTED
>> +Mikhail Gusarov <dottedmag@dottedmag.net>
>> +Mikhail Gusarov <dottedmag@dottedmag.net>
>> +Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org>
>
>> +
>> +test_begin_subtest "--deduplicate=no --sort=newest-first --output=sender --output=recipients"
>> +notmuch address --deduplicate=no --sort=newest-first --output=sender --output=recipients path:foo/new >OUTPUT
>> +cat <<EOF >EXPECTED
>> +Mikhail Gusarov <dottedmag@dottedmag.net>
>> +notmuch@notmuchmail.org
>> +Mikhail Gusarov <dottedmag@dottedmag.net>
>
> Two comments:
>
> 1) It's suprising that Mikail is first in both the newest-first and
> oldest-first list. Is it easy to explain why?
>
> 2) the use of path: term is not mentioned in the description. Should it
> be mentioned somehow?

I wanted to have a smaller set of results in the second test, and path:
was an easy filter so I could look at the files there to construct the
expected results. That also explains the first part; it just so happened
that the folder I arbitrarily picked happened to have Mikail there.

BR,
Jani.


>
> d