Add NOTMUCH_STATUS_DUPLICATE_MESSAGE_ID

[notmuch] / database.cc

diff --git a/database.cc b/database.cc
index 415040bc7000c4f9cb195e25cb9119d72c15a29d..712ab260225658588f0d427888694c74a5728800 100644 (file)
--- a/database.cc
+++ b/database.cc
@@ -40,6 +40,8 @@ notmuch_status_to_string (notmuch_status_t status)
        return "Something went wrong trying to read or write a file";
     case NOTMUCH_STATUS_FILE_NOT_EMAIL:
        return "File is not an email";
+    case NOTMUCH_STATUS_DUPLICATE_MESSAGE_ID:
+       return "Message ID is identical to a message in database";
     case NOTMUCH_STATUS_NULL_POINTER:
        return "Erroneous NULL pointer";
     case NOTMUCH_STATUS_TAG_TOO_LONG:
@@ -656,23 +658,8 @@ notmuch_database_add_message (notmuch_database_t *notmuch,
        /* Has a message previously been added with the same ID? */
        old_filename = notmuch_message_get_filename (message);
        if (old_filename && strlen (old_filename)) {
-           /* XXX: This is too noisy to actually print, and what do we
-            * really expect the user to do? Go manually delete a
-            * redundant message or merge two similar messages?
-            * Instead we should handle this transparently.
-            *
-            * What we likely want to move to is adding both filenames
-            * to the database so that subsequent indexing will pick up
-            * terms from both files.
-            */
-#if 0
-           fprintf (stderr,
-                    "Note: Attempting to add a message with a duplicate message ID:\n"
-                    "Old: %s\n"   "New: %s\n",
-                    old_filename, filename);
-           fprintf (stderr, "The old filename will be used, but any new terms\n"
-                    "from the new message will added to the database.\n");
-#endif
+           ret = NOTMUCH_STATUS_DUPLICATE_MESSAGE_ID;
+           goto DONE;
        } else {
            _notmuch_message_set_filename (message, filename);
            _notmuch_message_add_term (message, "type", "mail");