On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org> wrote: > On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 14:44:29 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net> wrote: >> In order to push forward with this, though, I think we really need to >> have a complete unit test for this new functionality. We usually like >> to see units tests that describe and then test for the new functionality >> you wish to add, followed by the patches that provide the new >> functionality. Lots of good tests for new functionality being proposed >> here shouldn't be too difficult to work out ahead of time. > > Right. I'd just like to make sure the approach I've taken (particularly > patch 1 in the set as it touches the lib) is acceptable before spending > time on testing and documentation etc. Indeed patches 1 and 2 changed > fundamentally between v1 and v2 after some chats on IRC. If the comments > now are favourable, I'll write the tests and documentation. (Though I > guess I have to admit the tests would've been beneficial to me already > now...) The library interface looks perfectly reasonable and consistent to me. My only concern would be that there's no way to return errors from notmuch_query_count_threads, but notmuch_query_count_messages has exactly the same problem. Other than that, you missed a few spaces before parentheses.