From: Mark Walters Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 07:49:31 +0000 (+0100) Subject: Re: search summary and exclusions X-Git-Url: http://git.tremily.us/gitweb.cgi?a=commitdiff_plain;h=cf6435158481c8a2e8843d9ec991f953c435a1ba;p=notmuch-archives.git Re: search summary and exclusions --- diff --git a/00/553d198260ce0214dd3ec1d003006b3594db33 b/00/553d198260ce0214dd3ec1d003006b3594db33 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..e2fcc2432 --- /dev/null +++ b/00/553d198260ce0214dd3ec1d003006b3594db33 @@ -0,0 +1,136 @@ +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 ACC22431FB6 + for ; Wed, 30 May 2012 00:49:34 -0700 (PDT) +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 0eX3sFUf2ZWX for ; + Wed, 30 May 2012 00:49:33 -0700 (PDT) +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 14C57431FAF + for ; Wed, 30 May 2012 00:49:33 -0700 (PDT) +Received: from smtp.qmul.ac.uk ([138.37.6.40]) + by mail2.qmul.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.71) + (envelope-from ) + id 1SZdeq-0007dR-SF; Wed, 30 May 2012 08:49:29 +0100 +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 1SZdeq-00033C-JI; Wed, 30 May 2012 08:49:28 +0100 +From: Mark Walters +To: Peter Wang , notmuch@notmuchmail.org +Subject: Re: search summary and exclusions +In-Reply-To: <20120530130733.GC2332@hili.localdomain> +References: <20120529000012.GF2331@hili.localdomain> + <87mx4sp79z.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> + <20120529140107.GE2347@hili.localdomain> + <87fwajnibz.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> + <20120530130733.GC2332@hili.localdomain> +User-Agent: Notmuch/0.13+55~g992aa73 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1 + (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) +Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 08:49:31 +0100 +Message-ID: <878vgam7lg.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: 26f30eab317eac93c3b77d83ce719d55 (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: Wed, 30 May 2012 07:49:34 -0000 + + +On Wed, 30 May 2012, Peter Wang wrote: +> On Tue, 29 May 2012 08:00:00 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote: +>> On Mon, May 28 2012, Peter Wang wrote: +>> > % ./notmuch search --format=json --exclude=true -- thread:0000000000009598 tag:unread +>> > [{"thread": "0000000000009598", +>> > "timestamp": 1338231998, +>> > "date_relative": "Today 05:06", +>> > "matched": 1, +>> > "total": 15, +>> > "authors": "Mark Walters| Peter Wang", +>> > "subject": "[PATCH v6 3/6] cli: make --entire-thread=false work for format=json.", +>> > "tags": ["deleted", "draft", "replied", "sent", "unread"]}] +>> > +>> > Here is a thread I participated in. From this, my MUA displays "1/15", +>> > suggesting that there is 1 unread message out of a total of 15. But +>> > upon opening the thread, there are only 11 messages visible: 4 were +>> > drafts (possibly deleted) which have been excluded. To the user, it +>> > looks like some messages went missing. +>> > +>> > Therefore I would like search --output=summary --exclude=true +>> > to report the total number of non-excluded messages. It doesn't need to +>> > be via the "total" field; a new field would be fine. +>> +>> What you have pasted above is --output=json, not --output=summary. The +>> formats are quite different. What are you asking for a change in? +> +> --output=summary is the default. --format=json only changes the +> surface syntax. +> +> % ./notmuch search --output=summary --exclude=true -- thread:0000000000009598 tag:unread +> thread:0000000000009598 Yest. 05:06 [1/15] Mark Walters| Peter Wang; [PATCH v6 3/6] cli: make --entire-thread=false work for format=json. (deleted draft replied sent unread) +> +>> But regardless, I don't think I would like to see the changes you +>> suggest. I would like for the thread total to list the total number of +>> messages in the thread, regardless whether they're excluded or not. +>> Same for the tags. I think I want to continue to see if excluded +>> messages are in a returned thread. The desire to hide the excluded +>> messages in the output is why they're marked as hidden/not visible. +>> +>> Think about the excludes as acting on the search itself, and less on the +>> output. We exclude messages from search, but if they show up in a +>> returned thread we at least acknowledge that they're there. +> +> Understood; it's a two-phase process, and I wasn't making the +> distinction. If it is the expected and useful behaviour, so be it. +> +> Maybe there is room for another keyword under --exclude? + +Yes that might be the best way to go. Something like --exclude=all and +then excluded messages never appear anywhere? + +I think it should be easy: I will try to send a patch tonight. + +Best wishes + +Mark