aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/bindings/python/setup.py
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorDaniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>2016-04-08 22:54:47 -0300
committerDavid Bremner <david@tethera.net>2016-04-15 07:07:23 -0300
commit92559ee3473381b0ba207ddb7db944d6ffadc2db (patch)
tree89cca67cf1bc3bff10bc7ee36c9b8cea6afe5347 /bindings/python/setup.py
parentf68e776617175fe77cbd7b29ce0fb2a1011117a8 (diff)
test thread breakage when messages are removed and re-added
This test (T590-thread-breakage.sh) has known-broken subtests. If you have a two-message thread where message "B" is in-reply-to "A", notmuch rightly sees this as a single thread. But if you: * remove "A" from the message store * run "notmuch new" * add "A" back into the message store * re-run "notmuch new" Then notmuch sees the messages as distinct threads. This happens because if you insert "B" initially (before anything is known about "A"), then a "ghost message" gets added to the database in reference to "A" that is in the same thread, which "A" takes over when it appears. But if "A" is subsequently removed, no ghost message is retained, so when "A" appears, it is treated as a new thread. I see a few options to fix this: ghost-on-removal ---------------- We could unilaterally add a ghost upon message removal. This has a few disadvantages: the message index would leak information about what messages the user has ever been exposed to, and we also create a perpetually-growing dataset -- the ghosts can never be removed. ghost-on-removal-when-shared-thread-exists ------------------------------------------ We could add a ghost upon message removal iff there are other non-ghost messages with the same thread ID. We'd also need to remove all ghost messages that share a thread when the last non-ghost message in that thread is removed. This still has a bit of information leakage, though: the message index would reveal that i've seen a newer message in a thread, even if i had deleted it from my message store track-dependencies ------------------ rather than a simple "ghost-message" we could store all the (A,B) message-reference pairs internally, showing which messages A reference which other messages B. Then removal of message X would require deleting all message-reference pairs (X,B), and only deleting a ghost message if no (A,X) reference pair exists. This requires modifying the database by adding a new and fairly weird table that would need to be indexed by both columns. I don't know whether xapian has nice ways to do that. scan-dependencies ----------------- Without modifying the database, we could do something less efficient. Upon removal of message X, we could scan the headers of all non-ghost messages that share a thread with X. If any of those messages refers to X, we would add a ghost message. If none of them do, then we would just drop X entirely from the table. --------------------- One risk of attempted fixes to this problem is that we could fail to remove the search term indexes entirely. This test contains additional subtests to guard against that. This test also ensures that the right number of ghost messages exist in each situation; this will help us ensure we don't accumulate ghosts indefinitely or leak too much information about what messages we've seen or not seen, while still making it easy to reassemble threads when messages come in out-of-order.
Diffstat (limited to 'bindings/python/setup.py')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions