From e45429fd1d3929b34569b3c7ce304779cd1bac45 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Peter Wang Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 19:04:24 +1100 Subject: [PATCH] Re: [PATCH v3 01/20] cli: add stub for insert command --- 53/2ee6448c387350595817b6dbc136cfaf6d9b38 | 149 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 149 insertions(+) create mode 100644 53/2ee6448c387350595817b6dbc136cfaf6d9b38 diff --git a/53/2ee6448c387350595817b6dbc136cfaf6d9b38 b/53/2ee6448c387350595817b6dbc136cfaf6d9b38 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..a34c0ca4d --- /dev/null +++ b/53/2ee6448c387350595817b6dbc136cfaf6d9b38 @@ -0,0 +1,149 @@ +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 53828431FAF + for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 00:04:33 -0800 (PST) +X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org +X-Spam-Flag: NO +X-Spam-Score: -0.799 +X-Spam-Level: +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 + tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, + FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 KOcRMQ7IBIqg for ; + Wed, 23 Jan 2013 00:04:32 -0800 (PST) +Received: from mail-pa0-f42.google.com (mail-pa0-f42.google.com + [209.85.220.42]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) + (No client certificate requested) + by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 87B5C431FAE + for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 00:04:32 -0800 (PST) +Received: by mail-pa0-f42.google.com with SMTP id rl6so4637742pac.1 + for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 00:04:30 -0800 (PST) +DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; + h=x-received:date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to + :references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition + :content-transfer-encoding; + bh=CX72w5YPg+L5328OWEQqhlhCHBu8scxfrZ9EQdPSS0Y=; + b=xJ4E4IRl/vpYHODtNKCDZiPLIhY0IIlUUCj3a3WQqBPY9YHruwfJM1Ir+KBU71YLIj + e4E8xj9up9Wmlj9kbHC5RIMEg8RxWQk07l786YXcQdAvZ3P8+f53KdMuNqPjnNouo+QW + 30QS6Xuk+dav6eYUBg/BQazNnk+zCdprqxDztnkaSqOmaDqUgRzzO2eZzp6kAlJtUIRq + myxmbn2eOSbBgjc7lis4fk3EcN1UFEDHpAKfP5YNhaWk/EGWQZWxnO7IvksNCW0cTYwV + 9GohcBr27gOpC5kVa8RHqblYcTAlNBNv3iKmEQczE6yD1MosQgJAI0ewQQsUWmlxOPkh + uzAg== +X-Received: by 10.66.76.37 with SMTP id h5mr2381731paw.33.1358928270668; + Wed, 23 Jan 2013 00:04:30 -0800 (PST) +Received: from localhost (215.42.233.220.static.exetel.com.au. + [220.233.42.215]) + by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id qn3sm12357330pbb.56.2013.01.23.00.04.27 + (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); + Wed, 23 Jan 2013 00:04:29 -0800 (PST) +Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 19:04:24 +1100 +Message-ID: <20130123190424.GA1980@hili.localdomain> +From: Peter Wang +To: Jani Nikula +Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/20] cli: add stub for insert command +In-Reply-To: <87vcaoj3i0.fsf@nikula.org> +References: <1358643004-14522-1-git-send-email-novalazy@gmail.com> + <1358643004-14522-2-git-send-email-novalazy@gmail.com> + <87vcaoj3i0.fsf@nikula.org> +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 +Content-Disposition: inline +Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit +Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org +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, 23 Jan 2013 08:04:33 -0000 + +On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 23:45:43 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: +> > Though it could be used as an alternative to notmuch new, the reason +> > I want this is to allow my notmuch frontend to add postponed or sent +> > messages to the mail store and notmuch database, without resorting to +> > another tool (e.g. notmuch-deliver) nor directly modifying the maildir. +> +> This review is based on the following patches squashed together: +> +> cli: add stub for insert command +> insert: open Maildir tmp file +> insert: copy stdin to Maildir tmp file +> insert: move file from Maildir tmp to new +> insert: add new message to database +> insert: apply default tags to new message +> insert: parse and apply command-line tag operations +> insert: fsync after writing tmp file +> insert: trap SIGINT and clean up +> insert: add copyright line from notmuch-deliver +> +> It's much easier for me to grasp the big picture this way. +> + +So there *is* a limit to how fine-grained notmuchers want their patches ;-) + +> > +static notmuch_bool_t +> > +maildir_move_tmp_to_new (const char *tmppath, const char *newpath) +> > +{ +> > + if (rename (tmppath, newpath) != 0) { +> > + fprintf (stderr, "Error: rename() failed: %s\n", strerror (errno)); +> > + return FALSE; +> > + } +> > + +> > + return TRUE; +> > +} +> +> IMO you could just use rename() inline in the caller, without a wrapper. + +A subsequent patch fsyncs the directory here. + +> > +/* Copy the contents of standard input (fdin) into fdout. */ +> > +static notmuch_bool_t +> > +copy_stdin (int fdin, int fdout) +> +> The comment and the function name imply the function has something to do +> with stdin, while it only cares about file descriptors. + +Tomi pointed out that the error message refers to standard input. + +> > +/* Add the specified message file to the notmuch database, applying tags. +> > + * The file is renamed to encode notmuch tags as maildir flags. */ +> > +static notmuch_bool_t +> > +add_file_to_database (notmuch_database_t *notmuch, const char *path, +> > + tag_op_list_t *tag_ops) +> > +{ +> > + notmuch_message_t *message; +> > + notmuch_status_t status; +> > + +> > + status = notmuch_database_add_message (notmuch, path, &message); +> > + switch (status) { +> > + case NOTMUCH_STATUS_SUCCESS: +> > + break; +> > + case NOTMUCH_STATUS_DUPLICATE_MESSAGE_ID: +> > + fprintf (stderr, "Warning: duplicate message.\n"); +> +> This is not uncommon. Why the warning? +> + +I put in the warning because I wasn't sure, then forgot to revisit it. + +> Also, notmuch new does not apply new.tags in this case. Are you sure we +> want to do that here? (You get mail, you read and archive it, you get +> the dupe, it pops up unread in your inbox again.) + +Should command-line tags to be applied to duplicate messages? +I'm thinking not. + +I'll fix the other problems you found. + +Peter -- 2.26.2