From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp1 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id YMuhKJDhol47HwAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 12:54:40 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp1 with LMTPS id 8K9OL5fhol70HAAAbx9fmQ (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 12:54:47 +0000 Received: from arlo.cworth.org (arlo.cworth.org [50.126.95.6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54A9594129E for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 12:54:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D95DA6DE1395; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 05:54:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org Received: from arlo.cworth.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (arlo.cworth.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9UhDZHrUlNBU; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 05:54:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from arlo.cworth.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6BD16DE138E; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 05:54:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CBD96DE138E for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 05:54:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org Received: from arlo.cworth.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (arlo.cworth.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3AHAAl0x8vYA for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 05:54:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qt1-f177.google.com (mail-qt1-f177.google.com [209.85.160.177]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 073406DE10B3 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 05:54:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qt1-f177.google.com with SMTP id w29so7739212qtv.3 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 05:54:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=qZjtfCaIwhPAR+tESpttLizg3tOku1QbnTeDsngQznY=; b=BAbsEDIHAglpFKdqKYAX8s8JJoMNKiHyDSxHtvri/7nfYDZ88CGgilNBVXxy62m/cI bHJhVkh9Gzk7Uy5Y73hvvqpV8u8uejHPFYkQ5nHz9m1qNF7sEqMSVXSVXwPSDwRoOvG8 rBmarm5tnYIpAqyj22yGEig5uSNWwbsXSdC40MLl8x6zCsTUjdN5AZwiGkXWpo+CA/7s KiJpKtW3ORgEiHKKE7Y1SdB39uVSrbJ2MZ7KCdOnZGhvs2443CIqLXi9DjlkPhIhQMFf aS9WBsZnHI9RUPEQ9HA3CZ5Fm4tDdZIV75e6EDHCWP9jNzYzbX6gM2Z93RV0eeeKIhFQ ep5g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=qZjtfCaIwhPAR+tESpttLizg3tOku1QbnTeDsngQznY=; b=SJigOnTJRrZ6qySazCi3HArIwbVyvJVSommYIxf7bZIel+HDPbNhNKh9BKC0vWUycN V3ikNS/2aSZ/9nKYf58UBn/+Y3ApSmTsXsYEjnntWuo5Uoru7LaZP/dCUxCiPMAak7Sd rRelNHH2BTLauqPONRFarW132V/+LcoPiFEZjlLFGR7r+MLzO7rurX+XuGdu21hlDrt+ EDfcqhNeDHLu/H9oAXAgJ2m1SGDNvD64uVa+qOm9wMvwBq8/y9DFF8AZWgYo3PNY3sKt xDuqHYLhc+eC8qfsnGswPW/vkC20OJGL4G/cJeETuUqJpDW/cIjuW+KgwC+Ibrpq/Cr7 Q25w== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuaWVikX43VkxANiJCTXsdFSB6vCawTYXn0YGaGSsJ3TOvN96+UR THsUOeQbpimAATdEt5j8kxhtxTAnVN49x5nQol9pZ8ve X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypIRXuH3UZk6AKspaohNk5Tto5LFNm1mQaUbXa4ZoG+W6S7Po3MVCjM0dE7L2dOEgZGrzDjAxTmEOSgHiqYNMDc= X-Received: by 2002:aed:2bc1:: with SMTP id e59mr9113931qtd.313.1587732874785; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 05:54:34 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Ciprian Dorin Craciun Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 15:53:58 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Inconsistencies in handling command flags: `--flag=value` different than `--flag value` To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: notmuch-bounces@notmuchmail.org Sender: "notmuch" X-Scanner: scn0 X-Spam-Score: -0.11 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail (body hash did not verify) header.d=gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=BAbsEDIH; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=gmail.com (policy=none); spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of notmuch-bounces@notmuchmail.org designates 50.126.95.6 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=notmuch-bounces@notmuchmail.org X-Scan-Result: default: False [-0.11 / 13.00]; GENERIC_REPUTATION(0.00)[-0.46235377587331]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+a:c]; R_DKIM_REJECT(1.00)[gmail.com:s=20161025]; FREEMAIL_FROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; IP_REPUTATION_HAM(0.00)[asn: 27017(-0.18), country: US(-0.00), ip: 50.126.95.6(-0.46)]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[gmail.com:-]; MX_GOOD(-0.50)[cached: notmuchmail.org]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED(-0.20)[50.126.95.6:from]; MAILLIST(-0.20)[mailman]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:27017, ipnet:50.126.64.0/18, country:US]; TAGGED_FROM(0.00)[]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[cipriancraciun@gmail.com,notmuch-bounces@notmuchmail.org]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; URIBL_BLOCKED(0.00)[volution.ro:email,notmuchmail.org:email]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[notmuch@notmuchmail.org]; HAS_LIST_UNSUB(-0.01)[]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; RCVD_COUNT_SEVEN(0.00)[8]; FORGED_SENDER_MAILLIST(0.00)[]; DMARC_POLICY_SOFTFAIL(0.10)[gmail.com : SPF not aligned (relaxed),none] X-TUID: dJJo5khT6AXO [Again sorry for double reporting. BTW, where should I search for previous bugs? I've currently tried the mailing list archive.] Trying to play with `notmuch` from a wrapper, I've stumbled upon the following command line flags handling bug: ~~~~ notmuch show --format json --entire-thread true --body false -- 'ciprian@volution.ro' notmuch show --format json --entire-thread true --body=false -- 'ciprian@volution.ro' #=> yields nothing notmuch show --format json --entire-thread=true --body false -- 'ciprian@volution.ro' #=> yields some emails notmuch show --format json --entire-thread=true --body=false -- 'ciprian@volution.ro' #=> yields lots of emails ~~~~ I would expect that `--flag value` and `--flag=value` are equivalent, at least for the options that the manual states `--flag=(true|false)`. However based on the previous experiments it seems that using anything except `--flag=value` yields inconsistent results. Hope it helps, Ciprian.