On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 23:55:33 +0200, Jani Nikula <j...@nikula.org> wrote: > > Hi Mark - > > This is my first look at any version of the series; apologies if I'm > clueless about some details... Please find some comments below. > > BR, > Jani. > > > On Thu, 2 Feb 2012 17:43:35 +0000, Mark Walters <markwalters1...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > The function is > > notmuch_thread_get_flag_messages > > (notmuch_thread_t *thread, unsigned int flag_mask, unsigned int flags) > > > > and returns the number of messages with the specified flags on flag_mask. > > Is the purpose of this function to get the count of messages that have > certain flags set, certain flags not set, and certain flags don't-care?
Yes: I was trying to follow Austin's suggestion from id:"20120124025331.gz16...@mit.edu" (although stupidly I didn't follow his suggestion of a function name). > At the very least, I think the documentation of the function should be > greatly improved. > > I think the name of the function should be notmuch_thread_count_messages > which is like notmuch_query_count_messages, but for messages in threads > (and with some extra restrictions). Yes I like your name; before I change it do you (and others) prefer it to Austin's suggestion of notmuch_thread_count_flags. Or we could even be more verbose with something like notmuch_thread_count_messages_with_flags > > /* Message flags */ > > typedef enum _notmuch_message_flag { > > - NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_MATCH, > > - NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_EXCLUDED > > + NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_MATCH = (1<<0), > > + NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_EXCLUDED = (1<<1), > > + NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_MAX = (1<<2) > > How are these used by the current lib users at the moment? How will they > break with this change? The only existing flag is NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_MATCH: that is currently zero but in the current code that is the bit offset of the flag; in my version it is the actual bit for the flag (otherwise I think flag masks end up very ugly). I believe all callers use notmuch_message_set_flag and notmuch_message_get_flag so they should not notice the difference. > Please align the assignments. Will do. > > @@ -457,8 +452,8 @@ _notmuch_thread_create (void *ctx, > > thread->message_hash = g_hash_table_new_full (g_str_hash, g_str_equal, > > free, NULL); > > > > - thread->total_messages = 0; > > - thread->matched_messages = 0; > > + for (i = 0; i < NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_MAX; i++) > > + thread->flag_count_messages[i] = 0; > > memset (thread->flag_count_messages, 0, sizeof(thread->flag_count_messages)); Will do > > thread->oldest = 0; > > thread->newest = 0; > > > > @@ -473,6 +468,7 @@ _notmuch_thread_create (void *ctx, > > notmuch_messages_move_to_next (messages)) > > { > > unsigned int doc_id; > > + unsigned int message_flags; > > > > message = notmuch_messages_get (messages); > > doc_id = _notmuch_message_get_doc_id (message); > > @@ -485,6 +481,10 @@ _notmuch_thread_create (void *ctx, > > _notmuch_doc_id_set_remove (match_set, doc_id); > > _thread_add_matched_message (thread, message, sort); > > } > > + message_flags = > > + notmuch_message_get_flag (message, NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_MATCH) | > > + notmuch_message_get_flag (message, NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_EXCLUDED); > > + thread->flag_count_messages[message_flags]++; > > The first impression of using a set of flags as index is that there's a > bug. But this is to keep count of messages with certain flag sets rather > than total for each flag, right? I think this needs more comments, more > documentation. Already naming the field flag_set_message_counts or > similar would help greatly. I will try and document it better: on first reading I parsed your name as flag set (as verb) message counts whereas I assume you mean "flag set" as a noun! I will see if I can come up with something though. > > _notmuch_message_close (message); > > } > > @@ -511,15 +511,28 @@ notmuch_thread_get_thread_id (notmuch_thread_t > > *thread) > > } > > > > int > > +notmuch_thread_get_flag_messages (notmuch_thread_t *thread, unsigned int > > flag_mask, unsigned int flags) > > +{ > > + unsigned int i; > > + int count = 0; > > + for (i = 0; i < NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_MAX; i++) > > ARRAY_SIZE (thread->flag_count_messages) ok > > > + if ((i & flag_mask) == (flags & flag_mask)) > > + count += thread->flag_count_messages[i]; > > + return count; > > +} > > I wonder if the same could be accomplished by using two flag mask > parameters, include_flag_mask and exclude_flag_mask. I'm thinking of the > usage, would it be easier to use: > > notmuch_query_count_messages (thread, NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_MATCH, > NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_EXCLUDED); > > to get number of messages that have MATCH but not EXCLUDED? 0 as > include_flag_mask could still be special for "all", and you could use: > > notmuch_query_count_messages (thread, 0, NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_EXCLUDED); > > Note the name change according to my earlier suggestion. It might be > wise to not export the function before the API is chrystal clear if > there is no pressing need to do so. (I assume you mean notmuch_thread_count_messages.) Can I just check this would return the number of messages which have all the flags in include_flag_mask and none of the flags in exclude_flag_mask? I completely agree about leaving it until we have the API well worked out. I wrote it in response to Austin's suggestion and then it looked like it would useful in my attempts to remove the notmuch_query_set_omit_excluded_messages API. However, those attempts failed so it doesn't have any users yet. Best wishes Mark _______________________________________________ notmuch mailing list notmuch@notmuchmail.org http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch