Currently I don't know of a good way of testing this, but at least in
principle a Xapian exception in _notmuch_message_{add,remove}_term
would cause an abort in the library.
This should not change functionality, but does slightly reduce code
duplication. Perhaps more importantly it allows consistent changes to
all of the similar exception handling in message.cc.
Instead of printing the same static string for each test, can replace
the assert with something simpler (or at least easier to integrate
into the test suite).
These are less crucial since we stopped generating new database
versions and relied primarily on features. They also rely on a
pre-generated v1 database which happens to be chert format. This
backend is not supported by Xapian 1.5.
Also drop the tool gen-testdb.sh, which is currently broken, due to
changes in the testing infrastructure.
This will be mandatory as of Xapian 1.5. The API is also more
consistent with the FieldProcessor API, which helps code re-use a bit.
Note that this switches to using the built-in Xapian support for
prefixes on ranges (i.e. deleted code at beginning of
ParseTimeRangeProcessor::operator(), added prefix to constructor).
Another side effect of the migration is that we are generating smaller
queries, using one OP_VALUE_RANGE instead of an AND of two OP_VALUE_*
queries.
gzip includes the name of the uncompressed file and its modification
timestamp into the compressed archive. The latter makes it hard to
reproduce the generated files bit for bit at a later time, so omit this
information from the archive using the "--no-name" option. This is a
reproducibility best practice, see
https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds/TimestampsInGzipHeaders
Today Defalos on #notmuch asked for a signed tarball for
0.30~rc2. This is a minimal change to support this in the future. The
question of automagically uploading will need more thought; currently
I like the fact that tags from pre-releases are only pushed manually.
If https://dev.gnupg.org/T3464 is unresolved in the version of gpgme
we are testing against, then we should know about it, because it
affects the behavior of notmuch.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
I haven't traced the code path as exhaustively for the SMIME test, but
the expiry date in question is larger then representable in a signed
32 bit integer.
Certain tests involving timestamps > 32 bits cannot pass with the
current libnotmuch API. We will avoid this issue for now by disabling
those tests on "old" architectures with 32 bit time_t.
Since October 2018 building notmuch has actually required compiler
that knows C11.
Also this -std=gnu99 was not used in code compiled by configure,
so in theory this could have caused problems...
...but no related reports have been sent, perhaps ever.
Both gcc and clang has been shipping compilers supporting C11
(or later) by default for more than four years now.
Therefore, just dropping -std=gnu99 (and not checking C11
compatibility for now, for simplicity) is easiest to do,
and removes inconsistency between configure and build time
compilations.
