From 349ed614ae2269f52d7cd59dd3fecac5057c1f4e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jameson Graef Rollins Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2012 09:19:52 +1700 Subject: [PATCH] Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] Move --no-exclude to --exclude=(true|false|flag) --- 8c/7c11b383f44185bcafa7548698761ae5cf18f8 | 112 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 112 insertions(+) create mode 100644 8c/7c11b383f44185bcafa7548698761ae5cf18f8 diff --git a/8c/7c11b383f44185bcafa7548698761ae5cf18f8 b/8c/7c11b383f44185bcafa7548698761ae5cf18f8 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..2473a13f7 --- /dev/null +++ b/8c/7c11b383f44185bcafa7548698761ae5cf18f8 @@ -0,0 +1,112 @@ +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 C4A9A431FAE + for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2012 09:20:10 -0700 (PDT) +X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org +X-Spam-Flag: NO +X-Spam-Score: -2.29 +X-Spam-Level: +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.29 tagged_above=-999 required=5 + tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_MIME_NO_TEXT=0.01] 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 xH1P7IqTWB6S for ; + Fri, 6 Apr 2012 09:20:07 -0700 (PDT) +Received: from outgoing-mail.its.caltech.edu (outgoing-mail.its.caltech.edu + [131.215.239.19]) + by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4BE4431FB6 + for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2012 09:20:04 -0700 (PDT) +Received: from earth-doxen.imss.caltech.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) + by earth-doxen-postvirus (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C38D66E0107; + Fri, 6 Apr 2012 09:20:02 -0700 (PDT) +X-Spam-Scanned: at Caltech-IMSS on earth-doxen by amavisd-new +Received: from finestructure.net (DHCP-123-229.caltech.edu [131.215.123.229]) + (Authenticated sender: jrollins) + by earth-doxen-submit (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69CFC66E010E; + Fri, 6 Apr 2012 09:19:55 -0700 (PDT) +Received: by finestructure.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) + id 522A23BC; Fri, 6 Apr 2012 09:19:55 -0700 (PDT) +From: Jameson Graef Rollins +To: Mark Walters , notmuch@notmuchmail.org +Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] Move --no-exclude to --exclude=(true|false|flag) +In-Reply-To: <87ty0w50r7.fsf@qmul.ac.uk> +References: <1333716551-29153-1-git-send-email-markwalters1009@gmail.com> + <87bon47v0o.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> + <87ty0w50r7.fsf@qmul.ac.uk> +User-Agent: Notmuch/0.12+93~gd54240d (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.4.1 + (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) +Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2012 09:19:52 -0700 +Message-ID: <877gxs7ryv.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; + micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" +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: Fri, 06 Apr 2012 16:20:11 -0000 + +--=-=-= + +On Fri, Apr 06 2012, Mark Walters wrote: +> There are some exclude tests for count in test/count. Do you think it +> needs to be a full test everything like in test/search-exclude? + +Ah yes. Somehow I missed that. + +I might prefer to keep all exclude tests in one test script. In which +case it would be good to move the count exclude tests there, and maybe +round it out by testing both exclude options. + +> There aren't any tests for show exclude, but there aren't very many +> tests explicitly for show anyway. My preference would be to add +> something like +> id:"1332171061-27983-1-git-send-email-markwalters1009@gmail.com" and add +> some tests to that. + +Oh wow I wonder why that hasn't been pushed yet. That's a bunch of new +good tests. It's a long changeset, which is probably why there aren't +any reviews, but it's all test additions so we should definitely +fast-track it. I'll try to look at it this weekend. + +> I could add some tests for show-excludes in the same format as the +> search-exclude tests though if you think that is better. + +As I mentioned above, I personally think it would nice to test all the +exclude functionality in one test script. So I would vote for adding +some show exclude tests there. Definitely doesn't need to be as +exhaustive as the search tests, but at least covering both cli options. + +jamie. + +--=-=-= +Content-Type: application/pgp-signature + +-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- +Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) + +iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJPfxepAAoJEO00zqvie6q8q9AP/jaBXI13C8YX/GQzxa7YPgdH +yE0tmUVct6IkghiA4mxYDh8Kw/qYuA5MIdAoqphfJF9kQlfOyHHOMaaPTn3fj/Ij +/SXCH11EyDhoTlJKkAJ303/uHCbtbK2JIqBKXFXpQiTbrrb5+6IJw0lWk2y4+4pO +BRVo3zy0Zx2NYrX9hxGmF2G7Fhn6sJNTcbWJTtoP3Oh+TDsd+28R4b0ujJVIm3N4 +QjW3QTS3vIAOpyFt1lsvnosRRwPD39fN/Yf5gMR/VobF0v021F/uk+Z16VxgTaWu +Higy4nivYCGn+7IXV8BmmzgYJOyxIIBO0D3cfFsgECnJjOUBFbYtauAm2kGotXrV +8+PgL9Bt3yDR7zTNsVUP6Il8FRNn6n2YOuWXRSKcFfvK8wPP98FOvO/2AeBsHNVW +9/a2Wtor03DRzxPoZhFDvTpqRsIayIauCDvKh19AUT1gdVJod+oJEa+/pzAGbmHP +jxPiQPePeYdvDqym0RWXAMUFdKRXWbTFU0qKKvD3zcwuzNHJiOzo7uV2Sfvzz4xD +Ke8TVuWJxskXyzI/rqMY+c189xH++5uhDqsZy7AY+3WyuMkbDvFkX4Bx48XBEm2O +FKUJ7JunseCYRUEktUvJlawYn/PY95UICoOeCBA8kgFTZievWI7h9JPpowhq+O6z +P6l+uhFFdgNz8/j6BCdB +=pLRB +-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- +--=-=-=-- -- 2.26.2