On 2023-03-29 at 08:32 -03, David Bremner wrote:
> It would be nice to structure this in terms of a known broken test
> (perhaps modify the existing one to reopen the database and dump the
> properties)
> that is then fixed by patch adding the sync.
I have restructured the commits to hopefully
Kevin Boulain writes:
>
> Yeah, talloc's documentation confirms that when the context is free'd
> every child is also free'd. Not quite sure what style is preferred
> (explicit or implicit, implicit sure leads to nicer code here).
In general implicit de-allocation is fine.
Kevin Boulain writes:
> On 2023-03-03 at 00:39 +02, Tomi Ollila wrote:
>> Somehow testkey1 = testvalue1 disappeared from the test code (which is
>> probably expected -- perhaps the commit message of the *change* 1/2
>> tried to point to that ;D)
>
> Yes, that proves
On 2023-03-03 at 00:39 +02, Tomi Ollila wrote:
> Somehow testkey1 = testvalue1 disappeared from the test code (which is
> probably expected -- perhaps the commit message of the *change* 1/2
> tried to point to that ;D)
Yes, that proves notmuch_message_remove_all_properties is broken without
the
On Wed, Mar 01 2023, Kevin Boulain wrote:
> _notmuch_message_remove_all_properties wasn't syncing the message back
> to the database but was still invalidating the metadata, giving the
> impression the properties had actually been removed.
>
> Also move the metadata invalidation to
_notmuch_message_remove_all_properties wasn't syncing the message back
to the database but was still invalidating the metadata, giving the
impression the properties had actually been removed.
Also move the metadata invalidation to _notmuch_message_remove_terms
to be closer to what's done in
