GNU bug report logs - #37489
27.0.50; Make `debbugs-gnu-search' work with `repeat-complex-command'

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 37489 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 37489 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: 27.0.50; Make `debbugs-gnu-search' work with `repeat-complex-command'
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2019 08:26:08 +0200

Hi,

when I want to repeat searching bugs with `debbugs-gnu-search' and a
similar query, I currently have to specify everything again.
`repeat-complex-command' is no help since the command currently has no
arguments.  Could we please make it work with `repeat-complex-command'?

The argument list of `debbugs-gnu-search' (currently empty) needs to
contain all information gathered, that seems to be the value of
`debbugs-gnu-current-query' and all arguments of the `debbugs-gnu' call.

Then most of the current function body should be moved into the
interactive form.  In the body only `debbugs-gnu-current-query' should
be let-bound to the first part of the function arguments, and
`debbugs-gnu' should be called with the rest.

TIA,

Michael.

Message #8 received at 37489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Michael Albinus <michael.albinus <at> gmx.de>
To: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>
Cc: 37489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#37489: 27.0.50; Make `debbugs-gnu-search' work with
 `repeat-complex-command'
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2019 15:26:06 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de> writes:

> Hi,

Hi Michael,

> when I want to repeat searching bugs with `debbugs-gnu-search' and a
> similar query, I currently have to specify everything again.
> `repeat-complex-command' is no help since the command currently has no
> arguments.  Could we please make it work with `repeat-complex-command'?
>
> The argument list of `debbugs-gnu-search' (currently empty) needs to
> contain all information gathered, that seems to be the value of
> `debbugs-gnu-current-query' and all arguments of the `debbugs-gnu' call.
>
> Then most of the current function body should be moved into the
> interactive form.  In the body only `debbugs-gnu-current-query' should
> be let-bound to the first part of the function arguments, and
> `debbugs-gnu' should be called with the rest.

The appended patch shall do the job, you might test. However, I fear we
will open a Pandora's box. We must set both debbugs-gnu-current-query
and debbugs-gnu-current-filter, it depends on whether PHRASE is a
string, or not. And even the allowed arguments in both cases are
different. So it is very easy to make it wrong when editing the argument
list. Even *I* would need to consult the implementation, in order to
know what's allowed, and what's not. That's why the arguments were
collected interactively only, so far.

Anyway, I'm interested in your feedback whether that's the way to go. If
yes, I would add some further sanity checks for QUERY, before callings
debbugs-gnu.

> TIA,
>
> Michael.

Best regards, Michael.

[Message part 2 (text/plain, attachment)]

Message #15 received at 37489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>
To: Michael Albinus <michael.albinus <at> gmx.de>
Cc: 37489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#37489: 27.0.50; Make `debbugs-gnu-search' work with
 `repeat-complex-command'
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 05:00:50 +0200

Michael Albinus <michael.albinus <at> gmx.de> writes:

> The appended patch shall do the job, you might test.

Seems to work fine, yes, thanks.

> However, I fear we will open a Pandora's box. We must set both
> debbugs-gnu-current-query and debbugs-gnu-current-filter, it depends
> on whether PHRASE is a string, or not. And even the allowed arguments
> in both cases are different. So it is very easy to make it wrong when
> editing the argument list. Even *I* would need to consult the
> implementation, in order to know what's allowed, and what's
> not.

I don't find it this problematic.  It's ok when not all combinations of
arguments are allowed.  But instead of consulting the implementation, it
would of course be better to describe limitations in the docstring.  If
it gets too complicated, maybe the list of arguments could be changed to
reflect the implementation even more.

Anyway, the patch is all that I wanted.  If the command barks the last
resort is to go through the queries again, which I have to do now
anyway.

> I would add some further sanity checks for QUERY, before callings
> debbugs-gnu.

That might be appropriate, but adding some details to the docstring in
addition along the way might not be wrong, too.  You don't even need to
explain each argument in detail (maybe you could even point to other
functions' docstring for that?), just enough to let me know what would
not work.  FWIW, I never called the command with an empty phrase, since
I didn't know that this is allowed and even then I would rather expect
that the server would blacklist me :-)

Regards,

Michael.

Message #20 received at 37489-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Michael Albinus <michael.albinus <at> gmx.de>
To: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>
Cc: 37489-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#37489: 27.0.50; Make `debbugs-gnu-search' work with
 `repeat-complex-command'
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 08:51:58 +0200

Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de> writes:

Hi Michael,

>> The appended patch shall do the job, you might test.
>
> Seems to work fine, yes, thanks.

Thanks for testing. There was still an error in the patch; it didn't
distinguish between queries and filters. I have fixed this.

>> However, I fear we will open a Pandora's box. We must set both
>> debbugs-gnu-current-query and debbugs-gnu-current-filter, it depends
>> on whether PHRASE is a string, or not. And even the allowed arguments
>> in both cases are different. So it is very easy to make it wrong when
>> editing the argument list. Even *I* would need to consult the
>> implementation, in order to know what's allowed, and what's
>> not.
>
> I don't find it this problematic.  It's ok when not all combinations of
> arguments are allowed.  But instead of consulting the implementation, it
> would of course be better to describe limitations in the docstring.  If
> it gets too complicated, maybe the list of arguments could be changed to
> reflect the implementation even more.

It's even more complex. There is the difference whether an argument is
appropriate or not, depending on QUERY being a string or nil. But there
is also the difference whether an argument is sent to the server, or
whether the argument's discrimination is done client-side. The latter is
much less performant.

> Anyway, the patch is all that I wanted.  If the command barks the last
> resort is to go through the queries again, which I have to do now
> anyway.
>
>> I would add some further sanity checks for QUERY, before callings
>> debbugs-gnu.
>
> That might be appropriate, but adding some details to the docstring in
> addition along the way might not be wrong, too.  You don't even need to
> explain each argument in detail (maybe you could even point to other
> functions' docstring for that?), just enough to let me know what would
> not work.  FWIW, I never called the command with an empty phrase, since
> I didn't know that this is allowed and even then I would rather expect
> that the server would blacklist me :-)

See the manual, it tells you :-)

`debugs-gnu search' is designed to handle all of this interactively. Now,
that we have arguments, and this command can be called like a function,
I've added a reference to the docstring, pointing to the manual. Plus
the promised sanity checks.

I've pushed the changes to GNU ELPA. I've also released debbugs 0.20,
because the solution for bug#36903, which was blocking the release, is
expected to be applied in gnus.

> Regards,
>
> Michael.

Best regards, Michael.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.