sup talk - Nov 2007 - [PATCH] Fix for before-add-message hook

Hi -

Last one for now. This fixes the hook for filtering messages so that
messages you tag with spam/killed/deleted in the hook dont get
displayed by the inbox.

Just to confirm something: if you want to tag using one of these
labels you need to use the ruby symbol in the hook :spam, :killed and
:deleted

Eg:

message.add_label :spam if message.raw_header =~ /X-Spam-Flag: YES/

Marcus
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: before-add-message-hook
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 1117 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/sup-talk/attachments/20071106/07ad0c18/attachment.obj

Excerpts from Marcus Williams''s message of Tue Nov 06 02:25:04 -0800
2007:
> Last one for now. This fixes the hook for filtering messages so that
> messages you tag with spam/killed/deleted in the hook dont get
> displayed by the inbox.
And applied. Thanks for all your hard work, Marcus!

-- 
William <wmorgan-sup at masanjin.net>

On 7.11.2007, William Morgan wrote:
> Excerpts from Marcus Williams''s message of Tue Nov 06 02:25:04
-0800 2007:
> > Last one for now. This fixes the hook for filtering messages so that
> > messages you tag with spam/killed/deleted in the hook dont get
> > displayed by the inbox.
> 
> And applied. Thanks for all your hard work, Marcus!
... Mmmm - I''m having a few problems with that is-relevant change.
Sometimes (I''ve just seen one now) I get a new message that doesnt
make it to the inbox. Whats odd is that it does appear if I pull in a
few more threads or somehow update the inbox buffer.

It might not be related to this change, but I''d not noticed it until
just now. I''ll see if I can reproduce it somehow.

Marcus

On 7.11.2007, Marcus Williams wrote:
> It might not be related to this change, but I''d not noticed it
until
> just now. I''ll see if I can reproduce it somehow.
Got it - in is_relevant you changed the patch to use "&&"
instead of
"and" and I think this broke it because of the precedence of
"&&"
makes it do

m.labels.include? (:inbox && ......)

whereas mine does

(m.labels.include? :inbox) and (......)

reverting back to "and" fixes it in my version.

Marcus

Excerpts from Marcus Williams''s message of Wed Nov 07 08:34:32 -0800
2007:
> Got it - in is_relevant you changed the patch to use "&&"
instead of
> "and" and I think this broke it because of the precedence of
"&&"
> makes it do
Good catch. Fixed in SVN. (Still refusing to use "and" though
:) )

-- 
William <wmorgan-sup at masanjin.net>

Excerpts from William Morgan''s message of Wed Nov 07 09:35:11 -0800
2007:
> Good catch. Fixed in SVN. (Still refusing to use "and" though
> :) )
To be clear, idiomatic Ruby is to use and/or for short-cut exit checks
like "or return nil", and use && and || for all
"normal" boolean
comparisons. I''m not just trying to be a jerk! But I did blindly make
that change your patch without thinking about what I was doing, so thank
you for catching that.

-- 
William <wmorgan-sup at masanjin.net>

Excerpts from William Morgan''s message of Wed Nov 07 11:35:11 -0600
2007:
> Good catch. Fixed in SVN. (Still refusing to use "and" though
> :) )
Thanks guys! This had been bugging me all day.

-- 
Christopher Warrington <chrisw at rice.edu>
Jones College