From 8e135d95b3f1647016a68247dd16603c0a1fa8d5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Mark Walters Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:07:49 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Re: [PATCH 0/2] A bug in the exclude code --- 43/c999bfd4e78ef9b5bc2a918ecd84c842a74e51 | 130 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 130 insertions(+) create mode 100644 43/c999bfd4e78ef9b5bc2a918ecd84c842a74e51 diff --git a/43/c999bfd4e78ef9b5bc2a918ecd84c842a74e51 b/43/c999bfd4e78ef9b5bc2a918ecd84c842a74e51 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..46c8d2fcb --- /dev/null +++ b/43/c999bfd4e78ef9b5bc2a918ecd84c842a74e51 @@ -0,0 +1,130 @@ +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 E772A431FBC + for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 14:07:51 -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 rhkIp9WVp1bI for ; + Mon, 12 Mar 2012 14:07:51 -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 23F55431FAF + for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 14:07:51 -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 1S7CT4-00064s-NH; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:07:47 +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 1S7CT4-0004kp-9t; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:07:46 +0000 +From: Mark Walters +To: Jameson Graef Rollins , + notmuch@notmuchmail.org +Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] A bug in the exclude code +In-Reply-To: <87r4wx7fjz.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> +References: <1331551914-28323-1-git-send-email-markwalters1009@gmail.com> + <87r4wx7fjz.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> +User-Agent: Notmuch/0.11.1+309~g045f9e7 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1 + (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) +Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:07:49 +0000 +Message-ID: <87aa3lsf2y.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: 93a2697b1f9fc3ce6f380c9ede94770d (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: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:07:52 -0000 + + +On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 13:03:12 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote: +> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 11:31:52 +0000, Mark Walters wrote: +> > There is a bug in the exclude code (found by jrollins in the +> > --with-excluded series) but also present in master. None of the +> > current tests were finding it so the first patch adds two tests. +> +> Hey, Mark. Thanks so much for looking in to this. It look like this +> patch fixes the issue for me too! Very excited to see this all coming +> together. +> +> > The bug (and test failure) do not appear in all configuations: on my +> > main test machine (an oldish debian testing 32bit userspace with a +> > 64bit kernel and xapian 1.2.7) all tests pass. On my laptop (a recent +> > debian testing 64bit userspace and xapian 1.2.8) one of the new tests +> > fails. +> +> It was failing for me too, but looking closer at the test I actually +> found a bug: you accidentally used the old style --no-exclude option, +> instead of the new --with-excludes. When you fix the call all the tests +> pass fine. + +That's great. + +> > The second patch fixes the behaviour for me but I don't see why it +> > should make a difference: searches for A and not B should give the +> > same results as A and not (A and B). It could be a bug in xapian, it +> > could be that I am not allowed to reuse queries as I do (is query1 = +> > query1 and query2 allowed?) or it could be some memory use bug on my +> > part. +> +> I can't explain it either, but there's certainly a lot about xapian that +> I don't understand. Maybe one of the xapian gurus will have some ideas +> (Olly? Austin?). +> +> Anyway, thanks again for pushing on all of this, Mark. +> +> jamie. +> +> PS. Not a big deal, but it would have been nice for this patch set to +> have been sent in-reply-to the original series it fixes, just to keep +> everything together. + +Just to emphasise the bug is already present in current master (just +better hidden because of the defaults). Hence this pair of patches +(unlike the first one I sent privately) are to current master rather +than to the exclude the series (though they apply there to to modulo the +minor change you mention). + +Best wishes + +Mark + -- 2.26.2