On Sun 28 Jun 2020 at 13:19 -0300, David Bremner wrote:

> Floris Bruynooghe <f...@devork.be> writes:
>> Hi,
>> I started writing some test cases to define better what you can do with
>> a closed database and make sure that the python bindings do not behave
>> unexpectedly here too.
>> One of the first things I tried ends up with xapian calling
>> exit_group(2) directly, terminating the process.  So I'm wondering if
>> I'm approaching this entirely the wrong way.  My understanding is that
>> we should generally be allowed to use anything after the database has
>> been closed, as long as nothing has been destroyed.
>> Below is a minimal reproducible example of what I'm testing so far.  I
>> must admit I'm generally lazy here and usually just test with notmuch
>> that is currently in Debian testing.
> Funny that you should mention lazy, that's basically what the problem is
> here ;). notmuch_message_get_message_id is lazily trying to read the
> information from the database. This is a bit surprising here because of
> the query, but that's not really visible once the message object is
> created.
> In principle it could be documented what parts of the API can trigger
> access to the database, but I'm not sure about the benefit of the extra
> complexity. It might be safer to assume that only access to already
> fetched information is safe. In particular if you move
>     messageid = notmuch_message_get_message_id(msg);
> before you close the database, then printing it out afterwards works. I
> didn't run it valgrind to make sure, but afaik, that should be perfectly
> legal.

Ok, I forgot the "expected behaviour" part of the bug report ;) I think
that this doesn't work is fine and I'm not surprised by and your
description of fetching it first is very reasonable.  However I was
expecting NOTMUCH_STATUS_XAPIAN_EXEPTION instead of bluntly getting
terminated.  This is what the notmuch_database_close() docs say after

I had a little look and this seems to be caused by the
message->doc.termlist_begin() call in
_notmuch_message_ensure_metadata(), I didn't have xapian debug symbols
and am not familiar with xapian to quickly have an idea of whether this
case can be improved or not.  (-dbg debian packages for notmuch and
xapian would be very handy ;))

But part of my question is, *should* this be improved?  Am I
interpreting notmuch's intended API correctly?

> The original motivation (see 7864350c938944276c1a378539da7670c211b9b5)
> to allow long running processes to release the lock on the
> database. This is not a pattern we use in the CLI, so it's not as well
> tested as it could be. In particular the work to export
> notmuch_database_reopen (tests, documentation) has not happened yet.
> d
notmuch mailing list

Reply via email to