[PATCH] Output unmodified Content-Type header value for JSON format.

[Dmitry Kurochkin]

Hi Jameson.

On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 02:49:43 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins at finestructure.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 06:42:00 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin <dmitry.kurochkin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The parameters are there for a reason.  They are part of the
> > content-type and are needed to handle the body properly.  If you say
> > that the parameters are not needed by notmuch users, that implies that
> > they are handled by notmuch.  Which is just not possible.
> 
> Hey, Dimitry.  At least some of the parameters in the content-type are
> actually related to the mime structure itself.  A good example is:
> 
> boundary=\"=-=-=\"
> 
> This parameter is there to tell the MIME parser how to parse the content
> that follows.  It is meant for the first level parser and no more.  Once
> the MIME has been separated into it's constituent parts, there's no need
> for any further clients to know anything about boundary string.
> 

Yes, at least in most cases.  On the other hand, if you can make notmuch
show raw multipart part (you can, right?), then it seems natural that
notmuch provides enough information to parse it.

> I would argue that notmuch is acting as the first level parser.  As far
> as I can tell, most of the rest of the parameters I've seen should only
> be useful to the those first-level parsers.
> 

I do not think first-level parser is a standard term.  As I understand,
you mean that notmuch parses MIME recursively until the leaf non-MIME
parts.  Correct?

I do not know what parameters you have seen.  The most common example of
a useful parameter for second-level parsers is a charset.

I do not understand why do we try to come up with excuses for not
providing useful information to users.  Current assumption that all
parameters that notmuch does not handle are useless is plain invalid.

> As Austin mentioned, is it not possible for notmuch itself to act on the
> parameter to give a properly formatted output to its clients?
> 

Please see my answer to Austin.  I explained why this is not an option
in general case.

As for parameters that notmuch already handles, like "boundary", I just
do not understand why we should invent some artificial exceptions and
decide for our users what parameters are useful or useless for them
instead of implementing a simple and kind of expected approach:
content-type in JSON is original Content-Type header value.  It makes
both the code and the format simpler.

> > The fact that this change happens to fix an issue with HTML charsets for
> > me is just a side effect.
> 
> But isn't that actually a large part of the issue?  If this patch fixes
> something that you think notmuch is doing improperly, could there not be
> a test for it?
> 

No.  It just happens to be how I found the problem.  The issue is:
notmuch JSON format mangles Content-Type header value by throwing away
useful information in some cases and adding info that was not there in
others.  Note that I do not mention any single parameter name here.  It
is a general issue, not a "charset" or "boundary" parameter issue.

> However, based on your patches and as far as I can tell, this change
> adds more than a boundary parameter to only crypto parts
> (application/signed and application/encrypted).  However, I don't think
> any of the crypto functionality needs any of the extra information
> provided in the extended output.  If there was a test for the
> functionality you think is missing, it would help bolster the case for
> the additional output.
> 

Again, the patch is not about "add boundary and other useless crypto
parameters".  The patch is about stop throwing away useless
information.

> > > >   "content": [{"id": 2,
> > > > - "content-type": "text/plain",
> > > >   "content": "This is a test signed message.\n"},
> > > 
> > > Without figuring out what's going on, I notice that some of the tests
> > > have been modified to remove the content-type fields on a bunch of
> > > parts.  I think that is probably not right.
> > > 
> > 
> > I tried to explain this in the preable.  These parts do not have
> > Content-Type in the original message.  So I think it is wrong for
> > notmuch JSON format to add it.
> 
> Ah, ok, I think I understand this point.  I think this is actually a
> separate issue than the one the rest of the patch set is for, though.
> One part of the patch is that content-type parameters are also about,
> and another part is that parts without content-type shouldn't be
> assigned one automatically.  I personally think those should be separate
> patches.
> 

The implementation makes it not practical to separate these changes.
They come as a result of the same code change.

Regards,
  Dmitry

> jamie.