Hi Floris and others,

I made another attempt at porting lieer to notmuch2, but I am missing the
get_directory method still. Any plans to look at it?

Regards, Gaute

On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 6:14 PM Floris Bruynooghe <flub@devork.be> wrote:

> Hi Gaute,
>
> Thanks for trying this out!
>
> On Mon 04 Nov 2019 at 11:27 +0100, Gaute Hope wrote:
> > I just checked out the wip/cffi branch on git.notmuch.org with the
> > purpose of porting Lieer (https://github.com/gauteh/lieer). There
> > seems to be some missing functionality: `Database.get_directory()`
> > specifically.
>
> Yeah, I didn't add that yet because I don't fully understand how it
> should be used.  Specifically I don't know where one might get a
> pathname from to pass to .get_directory() and thus whether the API would
> be cleaner to just return a reasonable directory object from whatever
> location that might be.  Maybe notmuch_database_get_path() is the only
> entrypoint here and you can get further by listing files and directories
> from it?  But maybe people then use the filesystem directly to find a
> directory and create the directories ad-hoc.
>
> I grepped lieer but I think you only use it in one place?  And if I
> understand it correctly you only do this to check if your mailstore/cwd
> is inside the notmuch database.  I.e. this is equivalent to checking if
> your mailstore/cwd has notmuch2.Database.path as prefix which you could
> easily do directly rather than using the FileError exception from
> .get_directory().
>
> So is anyone else aware of some code which uses db.get_directory() to
> give an idea of how and why this is used?
>
> > I also ran into a couple of warning when building
> > (included below).
>
> Thanks for pointing these out.  I guess if the bindings are in the main
> repo only the latest library version can be supported without any
> further concerns.
>
> > By the way, it does not seem that the API is very far from the
> > previous python API. If it is close enough, perhaps it is possible to
> > get away with a bug version bump in the bindings rather than creating
> > a new package. I understand the need for a new package, but it would
> > be nice if we could avoid the future confusion of two python binding
> > packages (if at all possible).
>
> While I'm glad to hear that you think a migration wouldn't be to painful
> for you I am very weary of knowingly breaking APIs.  I'd rather have
> people have an easy migration rather than unexpected breakage after an
> upgrade.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Floris
>