From notmuch 0.28, notmuch support relative database path in
notmuch-config(1), but python binding haven't taught this yet.
afew denied to work with a perfectly fine notmuch-config due to this.
In Python bindings, Message.get_property fails with an AttributeError when trying to fetch a property that doesn't exist.
From d712832ba982085975c27b23bb502af82e638b39 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: hydrargyrum <dev@indigo.re>
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2019 16:08:55 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] python: fix get_property error when property doesn't exist
We adopt a pythonic idiom here with an optional argument, rather than
exposing the user to the C indexopts object directly.
This now includes a simple test to ensure that the decrypt_policy
argument works as expected.
The old name has a bit of a feeling of hungarian notation. Also many
generators in the core are named with the suffix "s" to indicate
iterables: dict.items, dict.keys for example.
It makes the function a little more intuitive to use and does not
diverge much from the original function signature.
Also an example is added to the docstring.
The C functions notmuch_database_get_config,
notmuch_database_get_config_list and notmuch_database_set_config are
part of the official C bindings. So there should also be some python
bindings for them.
Also they are the only way to access the named queries introduced in
b9bf3f44.
The interface of the python functions is designed to be close to the C
functions.
currently, notmuch's get_message_parts() opens the file in text mode and passes
the file object to email.message_from_file(fp). In case the email contains
UTF-8 characters, reading might fail inside email.parser with the following exception:
File "/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/notmuch/message.py", line 591, in get_message_parts
email_msg = email.message_from_binary_file(fp)
File "/usr/lib/python3.6/email/__init__.py", line 62, in message_from_binary_file
return BytesParser(*args, **kws).parse(fp)
File "/usr/lib/python3.6/email/parser.py", line 110, in parse
return self.parser.parse(fp, headersonly)
File "/usr/lib/python3.6/email/parser.py", line 54, in parse
data = fp.read(8192)
File "/usr/lib/python3.6/codecs.py", line 321, in decode
(result, consumed) = self._buffer_decode(data, self.errors, final)
UnicodeDecodeError: 'utf-8' codec can't decode byte 0xe4 in position 1865: invalid continuation byte
To fix this, read file in binary mode and pass to
email.message_from_binary_file(fp).
Unfortunately, Python 2 doesn't support
email.message_from_binary_file(fp), so keep using
email.message_from_file(fp) there.
Signed-off-by: Florian Klink <flokli@flokli.de>
The deprecated Database.add_message now calls the new index_file with
correct number of arguments (without an extra `self`), and returns the
tuple from index_file - as it used to do before.
This change also adds a DeprecationWarning to the function.
We need a way to pass parameters to the indexing functionality on the
first index, not just on reindexing. The obvious place is in
notmuch_database_add_message. But since modifying the argument list
would break both API and ABI, we needed a new name.
I considered notmuch_database_add_message_with_params(), but the
functionality we're talking about doesn't always add a message. It
tries to index a specific file, possibly adding a message, but
possibly doing other things, like adding terms to an existing message,
or failing to deal with message objects entirely (e.g. because the
file didn't contain a message).
So i chose the function name notmuch_database_index_file.
I confess i'm a little concerned about confusing future notmuch
developers with the new name, since we already have a private
_notmuch_message_index_file function, and the two do rather different
things. But i think the added clarity for people linking against the
future libnotmuch and the capacity for using index parameters makes
this a worthwhile tradeoff. (that said, if anyone has another name
that they strongly prefer, i'd be happy to go with it)
This changeset also adjusts the tests so that we test whether the new,
preferred function returns bad values (since the deprecated function
just calls the new one).
We can keep the deprecated n_d_add_message function around as long as
we like, but at the next place where we're forced to break API or ABI
we can probably choose to drop the name relatively safely.
NOTE: there is probably more cleanup to do in the ruby and go bindings
to complete the deprecation directly. I don't know those languages
well enough to attempt a fix; i don't know how to test them; and i
don't know the culture around those languages about API additions or
deprecations.
