On Sun, 09 Jun 2013, Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com> wrote:
> Overall I like this series and am happy to give it a +1 as is but have a
> few comments which might be worth considering.
>
> Is the order of filenames clear? eg is it the order that notmuch new met
> them? In particular is duplicate=1 the oldest and duplicate=N the
> newest? If so that might be worth mentioning in the manpage.
AFAICT it's the order in which notmuch new encountered them. Which may
change if the user rebuilds the database. Which is why I intentionally
avoided making any promises about what the numbers mean.
>
> On Sun, 09 Jun 2013, Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org> wrote:
>> Effective with --output=files, output the Nth filename associated with
>> each message matching the query (N is 0-based). If N is equal to or
>> greater than the number of files associated with the message, don't
>> print anything.
>> ---
>> notmuch-search.c | 18 ++++++++++++------
>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/notmuch-search.c b/notmuch-search.c
>> index 4323201..196934b 100644
>> --- a/notmuch-search.c
>> +++ b/notmuch-search.c
>> @@ -177,7 +177,8 @@ do_search_messages (sprinter_t *format,
>> notmuch_query_t *query,
>> output_t output,
>> int offset,
>> - int limit)
>> + int limit,
>> + int dupe)
>> {
>> notmuch_message_t *message;
>> notmuch_messages_t *messages;
>> @@ -206,14 +207,17 @@ do_search_messages (sprinter_t *format,
>> message = notmuch_messages_get (messages);
>>
>> if (output == OUTPUT_FILES) {
>> + int j;
>> filenames = notmuch_message_get_filenames (message);
>>
>> - for (;
>> + for (j = 1;
>> notmuch_filenames_valid (filenames);
>> - notmuch_filenames_move_to_next (filenames))
>> + notmuch_filenames_move_to_next (filenames), j++)
>> {
>> - format->string (format, notmuch_filenames_get (filenames));
>> - format->separator (format);
>> + if (dupe < 0 || dupe == j) {
>> + format->string (format, notmuch_filenames_get (filenames));
>> + format->separator (format);
>
> Is it deliberate that dupe == 0 is not covered? If my newest oldest
> thing above is correct then maybe dupe == 0 could be the all option +N
> the Nth oldest and -N the Nth newest. This may be not-trivial enough
> it's not worth doing.
See my answer above. We can do this later if we decide it's worth the
trouble.
I don't check for 0 because it doesn't match anything. Similarly for
values < 0.
>
>> + }
>> }
>>
>> notmuch_filenames_destroy( filenames );
>> @@ -303,6 +307,7 @@ notmuch_search_command (notmuch_config_t *config, int argc, char *argv[])
>> int offset = 0;
>> int limit = -1; /* unlimited */
>> int exclude = EXCLUDE_TRUE;
>> + int dupe = -1;
>> unsigned int i;
>>
>> enum {
>> @@ -339,6 +344,7 @@ notmuch_search_command (notmuch_config_t *config, int argc, char *argv[])
>> { 0, 0 } } },
>> { NOTMUCH_OPT_INT, &offset, "offset", 'O', 0 },
>> { NOTMUCH_OPT_INT, &limit, "limit", 'L', 0 },
>> + { NOTMUCH_OPT_INT, &dupe, "duplicate", 'D', 0 },
>> { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 }
>> };
>>
>> @@ -424,7 +430,7 @@ notmuch_search_command (notmuch_config_t *config, int argc, char *argv[])
>> break;
>> case OUTPUT_MESSAGES:
>> case OUTPUT_FILES:
>> - ret = do_search_messages (format, query, output, offset, limit);
>> + ret = do_search_messages (format, query, output, offset, limit, dupe);
>
> Should there be an error message if duplicate=x is chosen with
> output!=files?
I avoided adding checks upon checks, complicating the code, because
there's no harm in allowing it. Matter of taste I suppose.
Thanks for your comments.
BR,
Jani.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Mark
>
>
>> break;
>> case OUTPUT_TAGS:
>> ret = do_search_tags (notmuch, format, query);
>> --
>> 1.7.10.4
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> notmuch mailing list
>> notmuch@notmuchmail.org
>> http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch