Felipe Contreras <felipe.contre...@gmail.com> writes: >> >> Is this assuming that the sort order in the CLI is the same as in the >> library / bindings? that seems a bit fragile if so. > > Both the CLI and the bindings are using the same libnotmuch library. > If neither of them specify a sort order, the default sort order of > libnotmuch would be used (I presume). Exactly the same order I would > get if I write a C program that uses libnotmuch and doesn't specify > any order. > > Why would the CLI specify an order the user didn't specify to libnotmuch?
I guess the point is that the CLI is not required to track the library precisely, so even if it is a bit theoretical, this change does introduce some fragility / technical debt into the test suite. For better or for worse, the API does not document a default sort order, so assuming any particular sort order is probably a mistake. I can imagine a future database backend where the "UNSORTED" order is actually non-deterministic. If we were to document a default sort order, UNSORTED might make the most sense as a default, as it's the highest performance (more or less by definition). _______________________________________________ notmuch mailing list -- email@example.com To unsubscribe send an email to notmuch-le...@notmuchmail.org