notmuch tag: Fix crash when removing a tag that didn't exist

[notmuch] / TODO

diff --git a/TODO b/TODO
index c5c748f65f92f6180c8ebb9ef26bf05652a17b02..fa85eb7fdc8685da42e63d3dbaa203980b26cd30 100644 (file)
--- a/TODO
+++ b/TODO
@@ -1,12 +1,24 @@
 Write a "notmuch tag" command to add/remove tags from messages
 matching a search query.
 
+Rename notmuch_thread_results_t and notmuch_message_results_t to
+notmuch_threads_t and notmuch_messages_t respectively.
+
+Add a talloc context as the first argument to each command in
+notmuch.c.
+
 Write a "notmuch show" that displays a single thread.
 
 Fix to use the *last* Message-ID header if multiple such headers are
 encountered, (I noticed this is one thing that kept me from seeing the
 same message-ID values as sup).
 
+Audit everything for dealing with out-of-memory (and drop xutil.c).
+
+Write a test suite.
+
+Achieve 100% test coverage with the test suite.
+
 Think about this race condition:
 
        A client executes "notmuch search"
@@ -15,11 +27,26 @@ Think about this race condition:
        Client asks for the thread to be archived.
 
    The bug here is that email that was never read will be
-   archived. That's bad. With the command set above, the user can
-   avoid the problem by just not running "notmuch new" while reading
-   mail, but the same problems exists with the API. One possible
-   solution would be to store an additional timestamp with each mail
-   document for the time it was added to the database. Then searches
-   could return a timestamp, and the client could pass that same
-   timestamp back to the archive command to not modify any messages
-   with a timestamp newer than what's passed.
+   archived. That's bad. The fix for the above is for the client to
+   archive the individual messages already retrieved and shown, not
+   the thread. (And in fact, we don't even have functions for removing
+   tags on threads.)
+
+   But this one is harder to fix:
+
+       A client executes "notmuch search"
+       While user is reading, new mail is added to database for the thread
+       Client asks for a thread to be archived.
+
+   To support this operation, (archiving a thread without even seeing
+   the individual messages), we might need to provide a command to
+   archive a thread as a whole. The problem is actually easy to fix
+   for a persistent client. It can onto the originally retrieved
+   thread objects which can hold onto the originally retrieved
+   messages. So archiving those thread objects, (and not newly created
+   thread objects), will be safe.
+
+   It's harder to fix the non-persistent "notmuch" client. One
+   approach is to simply tell the user to not run "notmuch new"
+   between reading the results of "notmuch search" and executing
+   "notmuch archive-thread" (or whatever we name it).