From: Mark Walters Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 22:27:36 +0000 (+0000) Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 07/11] lib: added interface notmuch_thread_get_flag_messages X-Git-Url: http://git.tremily.us/gitweb.cgi?a=commitdiff_plain;h=2c42cd790a9e736598a1ad2e3ebea16a34c1ac88;p=notmuch-archives.git Re: [PATCH v4 07/11] lib: added interface notmuch_thread_get_flag_messages --- diff --git a/cd/2c113a554ee1e21ad0627715252093025f3e28 b/cd/2c113a554ee1e21ad0627715252093025f3e28 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..d028d4fc0 --- /dev/null +++ b/cd/2c113a554ee1e21ad0627715252093025f3e28 @@ -0,0 +1,230 @@ +Return-Path: +X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org +Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org +Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) + by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 356DD431FBD + for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 14:26:34 -0800 (PST) +X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org +X-Spam-Flag: NO +X-Spam-Score: -1.098 +X-Spam-Level: +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 + tests=[DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, + NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=1.2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=disabled +Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1]) + by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) + with ESMTP id vZOyfN+2k5cd for ; + Thu, 2 Feb 2012 14:26:33 -0800 (PST) +Received: from mail2.qmul.ac.uk (mail2.qmul.ac.uk [138.37.6.6]) + (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) + (No client certificate requested) + by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15E96431FAF + for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 14:26:33 -0800 (PST) +Received: from smtp.qmul.ac.uk ([138.37.6.40]) + by mail2.qmul.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.71) + (envelope-from ) + id 1Rt56p-0008K9-Hy; Thu, 02 Feb 2012 22:26:28 +0000 +Received: from 94-192-233-223.zone6.bethere.co.uk ([94.192.233.223] + helo=localhost) + by smtp.qmul.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69) + (envelope-from ) + id 1Rt56p-000215-3F; Thu, 02 Feb 2012 22:26:27 +0000 +From: Mark Walters +To: Jani Nikula , notmuch@notmuchmail.org, amdragon@MIT.EDU +Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 07/11] lib: added interface + notmuch_thread_get_flag_messages +In-Reply-To: <87k444yk6i.fsf@nikula.org> +References: <874nv9rv79.fsf@qmul.ac.uk> + <1328204619-25046-7-git-send-email-markwalters1009@gmail.com> + <87k444yk6i.fsf@nikula.org> +User-Agent: Notmuch/0.11+140~gb5e1cf0 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.2.1 + (i486-pc-linux-gnu) +Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 22:27:36 +0000 +Message-ID: <871uqcswfb.fsf@qmul.ac.uk> +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii +X-Sender-Host-Address: 94.192.233.223 +X-QM-SPAM-Info: Sender has good ham record. :) +X-QM-Body-MD5: c06bf66a9bb8f38f50fa2995921d640d (of first 20000 bytes) +X-SpamAssassin-Score: -1.8 +X-SpamAssassin-SpamBar: - +X-SpamAssassin-Report: The QM spam filters have analysed this message to + determine if it is + spam. We require at least 5.0 points to mark a message as spam. + This message scored -1.8 points. + Summary of the scoring: + * -2.3 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, + * medium trust + * [138.37.6.40 listed in list.dnswl.org] + * 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail + provider * (markwalters1009[at]gmail.com) + * -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay + * domain + * 0.5 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list +X-QM-Scan-Virus: ClamAV says the message is clean +X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 +Precedence: list +List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." + +List-Unsubscribe: , + +List-Archive: +List-Post: +List-Help: +List-Subscribe: , + +X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 22:26:34 -0000 + +On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 23:55:33 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: +> +> Hi Mark - +> +> This is my first look at any version of the series; apologies if I'm +> clueless about some details... Please find some comments below. +> +> BR, +> Jani. +> +> +> On Thu, 2 Feb 2012 17:43:35 +0000, Mark Walters wrote: +> > The function is +> > notmuch_thread_get_flag_messages +> > (notmuch_thread_t *thread, unsigned int flag_mask, unsigned int flags) +> > +> > and returns the number of messages with the specified flags on flag_mask. +> +> Is the purpose of this function to get the count of messages that have +> certain flags set, certain flags not set, and certain flags don't-care? + +Yes: I was trying to follow Austin's suggestion from +id:"20120124025331.GZ16740@mit.edu" (although stupidly I didn't +follow his suggestion of a function name). + +> At the very least, I think the documentation of the function should be +> greatly improved. +> +> I think the name of the function should be notmuch_thread_count_messages +> which is like notmuch_query_count_messages, but for messages in threads +> (and with some extra restrictions). + +Yes I like your name; before I change it do you (and others) prefer it +to Austin's suggestion of notmuch_thread_count_flags. Or we could even +be more verbose with something like +notmuch_thread_count_messages_with_flags + +> > /* Message flags */ +> > typedef enum _notmuch_message_flag { +> > - NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_MATCH, +> > - NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_EXCLUDED +> > + NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_MATCH = (1<<0), +> > + NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_EXCLUDED = (1<<1), +> > + NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_MAX = (1<<2) +> +> How are these used by the current lib users at the moment? How will they +> break with this change? + +The only existing flag is NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_MATCH: that is currently +zero but in the current code that is the bit offset of the flag; in my +version it is the actual bit for the flag (otherwise I think flag masks +end up very ugly). I believe all callers use notmuch_message_set_flag +and notmuch_message_get_flag so they should not notice the difference. + +> Please align the assignments. + +Will do. + +> > @@ -457,8 +452,8 @@ _notmuch_thread_create (void *ctx, +> > thread->message_hash = g_hash_table_new_full (g_str_hash, g_str_equal, +> > free, NULL); +> > +> > - thread->total_messages = 0; +> > - thread->matched_messages = 0; +> > + for (i = 0; i < NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_MAX; i++) +> > + thread->flag_count_messages[i] = 0; +> +> memset (thread->flag_count_messages, 0, sizeof(thread->flag_count_messages)); + + +Will do + +> > thread->oldest = 0; +> > thread->newest = 0; +> > +> > @@ -473,6 +468,7 @@ _notmuch_thread_create (void *ctx, +> > notmuch_messages_move_to_next (messages)) +> > { +> > unsigned int doc_id; +> > + unsigned int message_flags; +> > +> > message = notmuch_messages_get (messages); +> > doc_id = _notmuch_message_get_doc_id (message); +> > @@ -485,6 +481,10 @@ _notmuch_thread_create (void *ctx, +> > _notmuch_doc_id_set_remove (match_set, doc_id); +> > _thread_add_matched_message (thread, message, sort); +> > } +> > + message_flags = +> > + notmuch_message_get_flag (message, NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_MATCH) | +> > + notmuch_message_get_flag (message, NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_EXCLUDED); +> > + thread->flag_count_messages[message_flags]++; +> +> The first impression of using a set of flags as index is that there's a +> bug. But this is to keep count of messages with certain flag sets rather +> than total for each flag, right? I think this needs more comments, more +> documentation. Already naming the field flag_set_message_counts or +> similar would help greatly. + +I will try and document it better: on first reading I parsed your name +as flag set (as verb) message counts whereas I assume you mean "flag +set" as a noun! I will see if I can come up with something though. + +> > _notmuch_message_close (message); +> > } +> > @@ -511,15 +511,28 @@ notmuch_thread_get_thread_id (notmuch_thread_t *thread) +> > } +> > +> > int +> > +notmuch_thread_get_flag_messages (notmuch_thread_t *thread, unsigned int flag_mask, unsigned int flags) +> > +{ +> > + unsigned int i; +> > + int count = 0; +> > + for (i = 0; i < NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_MAX; i++) +> +> ARRAY_SIZE (thread->flag_count_messages) + +ok + +> +> > + if ((i & flag_mask) == (flags & flag_mask)) +> > + count += thread->flag_count_messages[i]; +> > + return count; +> > +} +> +> I wonder if the same could be accomplished by using two flag mask +> parameters, include_flag_mask and exclude_flag_mask. I'm thinking of the +> usage, would it be easier to use: +> +> notmuch_query_count_messages (thread, NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_MATCH, NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_EXCLUDED); +> +> to get number of messages that have MATCH but not EXCLUDED? 0 as +> include_flag_mask could still be special for "all", and you could use: +> +> notmuch_query_count_messages (thread, 0, NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_EXCLUDED); +> +> Note the name change according to my earlier suggestion. It might be +> wise to not export the function before the API is chrystal clear if +> there is no pressing need to do so. + +(I assume you mean notmuch_thread_count_messages.) Can I just check this +would return the number of messages which have all the flags in +include_flag_mask and none of the flags in exclude_flag_mask? + +I completely agree about leaving it until we have the API well worked +out. I wrote it in response to Austin's suggestion and then it looked +like it would useful in my attempts to remove the +notmuch_query_set_omit_excluded_messages API. However, those attempts +failed so it doesn't have any users yet. + +Best wishes + +Mark