Quoth Mark Walters on Sep 04 at 8:30 am: > The lazy part handling had a subtle bug. Notmuch stores the part > information as a text property with the displayed part so attachment > handling (saving viewing etc work).
s/ work)/) work/ > > Now, some mime parts have subparts and to avoid overwriting the > sub-part data notmuch checks and if part data is already recorded it > does not overwrite it. > > Now with lazy part handling this could fail: there is already part > data stored. In the common case it works as the part type information > was stored when the lazy-part button was inserted. However, this fails > if the lazy part has sub-parts: notmuch had no idea these existed > until the lazy part insertion. This says that things fail when a lazy part has sub-parts, but not what the failure is. What is the failure? Can you give a specific sequence of events and conditions that leads to and demonstrates the failure? (I ask not just for commit posterity, but because I actually don't know, though I may have figured it out after writing the comment below.) > We fix this by removing any existing part-information from the > relevant region before doing the lazy insertion. > --- > This is the same as the previous patch > id:1377246875-7784-1-git-send-email-markwalters1009 at gmail.com except I > have added a substantial comment. I now believe the +1 in the remove > part information is genuinely correct for the reason detailed in the comment. > > This does seem to fix an actual bug (see parent message and links there). > > Best wishes > > Mark > > > emacs/notmuch-show.el | 13 +++++++++++++ > 1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/emacs/notmuch-show.el b/emacs/notmuch-show.el > index 20844f0..58ef4df 100644 > --- a/emacs/notmuch-show.el > +++ b/emacs/notmuch-show.el > @@ -852,7 +852,20 @@ message at DEPTH in the current thread." > ;; from a message header etc) so instead we start from the last > ;; character of the button by adding a newline and finish by > ;; removing the extra newline from the end of the part. > + ;; > + ;; Essentially, this function wants text properties to be > + ;; front-nonsticky (where most of the other functions need > + ;; front-sticky so that is what they actually are) and this is a way > + ;; of faking the front-nonsticky for this one function. Most properties are rear-sticky and front-nonsticky. Maybe this is referring specifically to :notmuch-part, which is the other way around? > + ;; > + ;; For exactly this reason we also remove existing part-information > + ;; from one extra character: this extra character is the newline > + ;; that we delete at the end. This comment doesn't say what the root of the problem is. Is the following accurate? ;; First, eliminate the :notmuch-part property from the region we'll ;; be inserting this part in, since we never override an existing ;; :notmuch-part property. If we're inserting a leaf part, it will ;; re-apply the same :notmuch-part, but if this isn't a leaf, the ;; children need to apply different :notmuch-part values. ;; :notmuch-part was originally applied to the newline following the ;; button as well, so remove it from that character, too. (If we ;; didn't remove it from the newline, this would all be for naught: ;; :notmuch-part is front-sticky and we insert the part immediately ;; before this newline, so the part would inherit :notmuch-part from ;; the newline.) > + > (save-excursion > + ;; Remove part-information from lazy part-region > + (put-text-property (button-start button) (1+ (button-end button)) > :notmuch-part nil) > + > (goto-char (button-end button)) > (insert "\n") > (let* ((inhibit-read-only t)