From 261d9306dfbb18f91788d138046c03d6f357ec32 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Mark Walters Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 17:39:22 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] [Patch V4] Add NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_EXCLUDED flag --- f9/7373e5e04559311fda91681e73821c65e88dcc | 121 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 121 insertions(+) create mode 100644 f9/7373e5e04559311fda91681e73821c65e88dcc diff --git a/f9/7373e5e04559311fda91681e73821c65e88dcc b/f9/7373e5e04559311fda91681e73821c65e88dcc new file mode 100644 index 000000000..4a02a9e74 --- /dev/null +++ b/f9/7373e5e04559311fda91681e73821c65e88dcc @@ -0,0 +1,121 @@ +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 C8CFE431FAE + for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 09:38:21 -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 Rg+qi13jTiZY for ; + Thu, 2 Feb 2012 09:38:21 -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 DDD19431FC3 + for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 09:38:20 -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 1Rt0bu-0006Ns-79; Thu, 02 Feb 2012 17:38:15 +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 1Rt0bt-0003Ey-Vj; Thu, 02 Feb 2012 17:38:14 +0000 +From: Mark Walters +To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org, Austin Clements +Subject: [Patch V4] Add NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_EXCLUDED flag +User-Agent: Notmuch/0.11+140~gb5e1cf0 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.2.1 + (i486-pc-linux-gnu) +Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 17:39:22 +0000 +Message-ID: <874nv9rv79.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: cd18d7160eb5031e5c41a2add3c63924 (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 17:38:22 -0000 + + +Here is the latest version of this patch set. I think I have fixed most +of the problems raised in review but there are some remaining issues +detailed below. + +Changes and queries: + +1) Changed --do-not-exclude option to --no-exclude + +2) The api notmuch_query_set_omit_excluded_messages remains: without it I +can't see how a user can pass the notmuch_messages_t object around which +does not contain the excluded messages. See +id:"87fweusabh.fsf@qmul.ac.uk" + +3) I have introduced a new function notmuch_thread_get_flag_messages +(notmuch_thread_t *thread, unsigned int flag_mask, unsigned int flags) + +which returns the number of messages with the specified flags on +flag_mask. (Note the current NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAGs were nominally the +bit position of the flag rather than the actual bit of the flag. I +changed that. I am not completely happy with the style for this commit +(patch 7/11): any comments gratefully received! + +4) In id:"20120131044352.GZ17991@mit.edu" Austin suggested that I use a +notmuch_mset_messages_t object rather than an notmuch_doc_id_set_t. I +couldn't see how that would work unless the iterator would generate the +excludes in step with the main query. At the moment the doc_id object +just stores a bitmap listing all relevant excluded messages. + +5) If we have a query which overrides the excludes such as "blah and +tag:deleted" should the tag:deleted messages still be marked excluded? +The current implementation does mark them excluded but my preference would +be not to. What do people think? + +6) In id:"20120131050748.GA10844@mit.edu" Austin pointed out that the +sort will be influenced by the excluded messages. I do not think either +of us are sure whether it should be or not so I have left it as is for +the moment. + +Best wishes + +Mark + + + + + + -- 2.26.2