search summary and exclusions

[Peter Wang]

On Tue, 29 May 2012 08:00:00 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins at finestructure.net> wrote:
> On Mon, May 28 2012, Peter Wang <novalazy at gmail.com> wrote:
> > % ./notmuch search --format=json --exclude=true -- thread:0000000000009598 tag:unread
> > [{"thread": "0000000000009598",
> > "timestamp": 1338231998,
> > "date_relative": "Today 05:06",
> > "matched": 1,
> > "total": 15,
> > "authors": "Mark Walters| Peter Wang",
> > "subject": "[PATCH v6 3/6] cli: make --entire-thread=false work for format=json.",
> > "tags": ["deleted", "draft", "replied", "sent", "unread"]}]
> >
> > Here is a thread I participated in.  From this, my MUA displays "1/15",
> > suggesting that there is 1 unread message out of a total of 15.  But
> > upon opening the thread, there are only 11 messages visible: 4 were
> > drafts (possibly deleted) which have been excluded.  To the user, it
> > looks like some messages went missing.
> >
> > Therefore I would like search --output=summary --exclude=true
> > to report the total number of non-excluded messages.  It doesn't need to
> > be via the "total" field; a new field would be fine.
> 
> What you have pasted above is --output=json, not --output=summary.  The
> formats are quite different.  What are you asking for a change in?

--output=summary is the default.  --format=json only changes the
surface syntax.

% ./notmuch search --output=summary --exclude=true -- thread:0000000000009598 tag:unread
thread:0000000000009598  Yest. 05:06 [1/15] Mark Walters| Peter Wang; [PATCH v6 3/6] cli: make --entire-thread=false work for format=json. (deleted draft replied sent unread)

> But regardless, I don't think I would like to see the changes you
> suggest.  I would like for the thread total to list the total number of
> messages in the thread, regardless whether they're excluded or not.
> Same for the tags.  I think I want to continue to see if excluded
> messages are in a returned thread.  The desire to hide the excluded
> messages in the output is why they're marked as hidden/not visible.
> 
> Think about the excludes as acting on the search itself, and less on the
> output.  We exclude messages from search, but if they show up in a
> returned thread we at least acknowledge that they're there.

Understood; it's a two-phase process, and I wasn't making the
distinction.  If it is the expected and useful behaviour, so be it.

Maybe there is room for another keyword under --exclude?

Peter