On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 14:44:48 +0100, Pieter Praet <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:13:48 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Pieter. > > > > On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 08:45:50 +0100, Pieter Praet <[email protected]> wrote: > > > `notmuch-search-operate-all' (bound to "*") adds and removes tags > > > to/from all messages which match the query used to populate the > > > current search buffer. > > > > > > --- > > > > > > Rebased to current master. > > > > > > Previous versions (chronologically): > > > - id:"[email protected]" > > > - id:"[email protected]" > > > - id:"[email protected]" > > > > > > > This looks like a useful patch series. We definitely need more tests > > for tagging operations in the Emacs UI. Do you plan to revive it? > > > > Absolutely. In fact, it's still alive and kicking on a local branch :) > > > > Note that not so long ago I posted a bunch of tagging-related patches > > [1] that would conflict with this patch at least because of > > `notmuch-search-operate-all' being renamed to `notmuch-search-tag-all'. > > > > Nice series! Will probably be pushed in the next few days, > so I'll hold off on resubmitting the tests until then. > > > > > > > > test/emacs | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ > > > 1 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/test/emacs b/test/emacs > > > index 8ca4c8a..e94ad94 100755 > > > --- a/test/emacs > > > +++ b/test/emacs > > > @@ -124,6 +124,25 @@ test_emacs "(notmuch-show \"$os_x_darwin_thread\") > > > output=$(notmuch search $os_x_darwin_thread | notmuch_search_sanitize) > > > test_expect_equal "$output" "thread:XXX 2009-11-18 [4/4] Jjgod Jiang, > > > Alexander Botero-Lowry; [notmuch] Mac OS X/Darwin compatibility issues > > > (inbox unread)" > > > > > > +test_begin_subtest "Add/remove tags to/from all matching messages." > > > +test_emacs '(notmuch-search "tag:inbox AND tags") > > > + (notmuch-test-wait) > > > + (notmuch-search-operate-all "+matching" "-inbox") > > > + (notmuch-search "tag:matching AND NOT tag:inbox") > > > + (notmuch-test-wait) > > > + (test-output)' > > > +cat <<EOF >EXPECTED > > > + 2009-11-18 [3/3] Adrian Perez de Castro, Keith Packard, Carl Worth > > > [notmuch] Introducing myself (matching signed unread) > > > + 2009-11-18 [1/3] Carl Worth, Israel Herraiz, Keith Packard > > > [notmuch] New to the list (inbox matching unread) > > > + 2009-11-18 [2/2] Keith Packard, Carl Worth [notmuch] [PATCH] Make > > > notmuch-show 'X' (and 'x') commands remove inbox (and unread) tags > > > (matching unread) > > > + 2009-11-18 [1/2] Keith Packard, Alexander Botero-Lowry [notmuch] > > > [PATCH] Create a default notmuch-show-hook that highlights URLs and uses > > > word-wrap (inbox matching unread) > > > + 2009-11-18 [1/1] Jan Janak [notmuch] [PATCH] notmuch new: > > > Support for conversion of spool subdirectories into tags (matching unread) > > > + 2009-11-18 [1/1] Stewart Smith [notmuch] [PATCH] Fix linking > > > with gcc to use g++ to link in C++ libs. (matching unread) > > > + 2009-11-17 [1/2] Ingmar Vanhassel, Carl Worth [notmuch] [PATCH] > > > Typsos (inbox matching unread) > > > +End of search results. > > > +EOF > > > +test_expect_equal_file OUTPUT EXPECTED > > > > I am worried that this test would break because of changes in other > > tests. E.g. if a new test adds a new message which matches "tag:inbox > > AND tags", this test would have to be updated. I think we should avoid > > this. I see the following options here: > > > > * Search for messages which are less likely to change, e.g. "from:carl". > > > > * Rework the test to avoid using any fixed expected results, e.g.: > > > > - count all messages with tag:inbox > > > > - remove inbox tag, add some other distinct tag for all messages with > > tag:inbox > > > > - count all messages with tag:inbox again, check that it is 0 > > > > - add the inbox tag back, remove the previously added tag, check the > > message count > > > > I like the latter approach because it does not compare Emacs UI output > > and hence would not break when that output changes. What do you think? > > > > Also, we should leave notmuch db in the same state as it was before the > > test if possible. > > > > Good point(s)! > > How about this: > > #+begin_src sh > test_begin_subtest "Add/remove tags to/from all matching messages." > expected=$(notmuch count from:cworth AND tag:inbox) > test "${expected}" == "0" && expected="Need more matches!" # prevent > false positives > test_emacs "(notmuch-search \"from:cworth AND tag:inbox\") > (notmuch-test-wait) > (notmuch-search-operate-all \"+matching\" \"-inbox\")" > output=$(notmuch count from:cworth AND tag:matching AND NOT tag:inbox) > notmuch tag -matching +inbox -- from:cworth AND tag:matching AND NOT > tag:inbox # restore db state! > test_expect_equal "$output" "$expected" > #+end_src >
I think "from:cworth" is not needed here. In my previous email I meant this as an alternative option to testing using counts. Probably we should add more counts in the test? E.g.: * before tagging - count tag:matching, it must be zero * after -inbox +matching - count tag:matching, it must be equal to $expected - count tag:inbox, it must be zero * after +inbox -matching - count tag:matching, it must be zero - count tag:inbox, it must be equal to $expected We can compare it in a single test_expect_equal call. Actual and expected results may be smth like: initial tag:matching count: n1 tag:inbox count after tagging: n2 tag:matching count after tagging: n3 tag:inbox count after restoring: n4 tag:matching count after restoring: n5 In case of failure, we should get a nice diff. Regards, Dmitry > > > Regards, > > Dmitry > > > > [1] id:"[email protected]" > > > > > + > > > test_begin_subtest "Message with .. in Message-Id:" > > > add_message [id]=123..456@example '[subject]="Message with .. in > > > Message-Id"' > > > test_emacs '(notmuch-search "id:\"123..456@example\"") > > > -- > > > 1.7.8.1 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > notmuch mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch > > > Peace > > -- > Pieter _______________________________________________ notmuch mailing list [email protected] http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
