On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 08:48:27 +0000, Jani Nikula <jani at nikula.org> wrote: > On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 23:24:56 +0000, Mark Walters <markwalters1009 at > gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 01:07:59 +0200, Jani Nikula <jani at nikula.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 22:27:36 +0000, Mark Walters <markwalters1009 at > > > gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 23:55:33 +0200, Jani Nikula <jani at 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 <markwalters1009 at > > > > > 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.GZ16740 at 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 > > > > > > I'd like to make it clear that it's about message count. Not about > > > getting flags, not about flag counts. _with_flags is a matter of taste, > > > no strong opinions there. > > > > I think I will go with notmuch_thread_count_messages as you suggest. > > > > > > > > /* 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? > > > > I will just comment on this: the *only* reason I put in > > NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_MAX was as a way of keeping track of the size of > > the bitfield. If there is a better way do say! > > At least one improvement would be to make it NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_ALL > (or similar) which would be the OR of all the other flags. Above, it > should be equal to (1 << 2) - 1. Not only is this something usable to > the library users, but also more accurate - if I'm not mistaken, the > flagset array currently has one element too many. > > If documented properly, the users should not be surprised that in the > future more flags might be added to NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_ALL, and > depending on the case they may or may not want to use that.
I think the current array is the correct size; I do need to keep track of the number of messages matching no flags, for example to calculate the total number of messages. I am not sure of the utility of NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_ALL as I think ~0 would give the same result. I am very happy to add it if others see some use, and with your earlier suggestions using ARRAY_SIZE etc I would only have one use of NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_ALL+1. > Some purists might say that #defines are better suited for defining bit > flags than enums, but I'm fine with either. I am happy either way. > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > Yes, as a noun! :) > > > > I haven't come up with a good name: the best I have come up with is > > flagset_message_count so if you have any suggestions... > > > > > > > > _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.) > > > > > > Doh! Yes. > > > > > > > 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? > > > > Yes I think this works better: these are the flags I want, these are the > > ones I don't want seems natural (versus here are the ones I care about > > and here are the ones of those I want). But I will wait to see if anyone > > else has an opinion. > > > > > Yes, but only if it makes sense to you! :) > > > > > > > > > > > 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