[PATCH] nnir vs. referring articles

[PATCH] nnir vs. referring articles

[Andreas Seltenreich]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 449 bytes --]

Hi,

isn't the check for a message-id supposed to be in
nnir-request-article instead of nnir-retrieve-headers?

Trying to refer articles by message-id
(gnus-summary-refer-parent-article, etc) ends in an error instead of
gnus continuing to process gnus-refer-article-method.

regards,
andreas

2006-05-31  Andreas Seltenreich  <uwi7@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>

	* nnir.el (nnir-retrieve-headers, nnir-request-article): Move check for
	message-id request.


[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #2: nnir.el.diff --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 2700 bytes --]

Index: nnir.el
===================================================================
RCS file: /usr/local/cvsroot/gnus/contrib/nnir.el,v
retrieving revision 7.12
diff -c -r7.12 nnir.el
*** nnir.el	29 May 2006 22:13:00 -0000	7.12
--- nnir.el	31 May 2006 19:05:37 -0000
***************
*** 801,811 ****
  	  server)
        (while (not (null artlist))
          (setq art (car artlist))
-         (or (numberp art)
-             (nnheader-report
-              'nnir
-              "nnir-retrieve-headers doesn't grok message ids: %s"
-              art))
          (setq artitem (nnir-artlist-article nnir-artlist art))
          (setq artrsv (nnir-artitem-rsv artitem))
          (setq artfullgroup (nnir-artitem-group artitem))
--- 801,806 ----
***************
*** 854,875 ****
  
  (deffoo nnir-request-article (article
                                &optional group server to-buffer)
!   (save-excursion
!     (let* ((artitem (nnir-artlist-article nnir-artlist
!                                           article))
!            (artfullgroup (nnir-artitem-group artitem))
!            (artno (nnir-artitem-number artitem))
!            ;; Bug?
!            ;; Why must we bind nntp-server-buffer here?  It won't
!            ;; work if `buf' is used, say.  (Of course, the set-buffer
!            ;; line below must then be updated, too.)
!            (nntp-server-buffer (or to-buffer nntp-server-buffer)))
!       (set-buffer nntp-server-buffer)
!       (erase-buffer)
!       (message "Requesting article %d from group %s"
!                artno artfullgroup)
!       (gnus-request-article artno artfullgroup nntp-server-buffer)
!       (cons artfullgroup artno))))
  
  
  (nnoo-define-skeleton nnir)
--- 849,875 ----
  
  (deffoo nnir-request-article (article
                                &optional group server to-buffer)
!   (if (stringp article)
!       (nnheader-report
!        'nnir
!        "nnir-retrieve-headers doesn't grok message ids: %s"
!        article)
!     (save-excursion
!       (let* ((artitem (nnir-artlist-article nnir-artlist
! 					    article))
! 	     (artfullgroup (nnir-artitem-group artitem))
! 	     (artno (nnir-artitem-number artitem))
! 	     ;; Bug?
! 	     ;; Why must we bind nntp-server-buffer here?  It won't
! 	     ;; work if `buf' is used, say.  (Of course, the set-buffer
! 	     ;; line below must then be updated, too.)
! 	     (nntp-server-buffer (or to-buffer nntp-server-buffer)))
! 	(set-buffer nntp-server-buffer)
! 	(erase-buffer)
! 	(message "Requesting article %d from group %s"
! 		 artno artfullgroup)
! 	(gnus-request-article artno artfullgroup nntp-server-buffer)
! 	(cons artfullgroup artno)))))
  
  
  (nnoo-define-skeleton nnir)

Re: [PATCH] nnir vs. referring articles

[Reiner Steib]

On Wed, May 31 2006, Andreas Seltenreich wrote:

> isn't the check for a message-id supposed to be in
> nnir-request-article instead of nnir-retrieve-headers?

(I don't know as I don't use nnir.el)

I've committed your change in the trunk.  Thanks.

BTW, if nobody finds a problem with the recent nnir.el changes back to
2006-04-11 (see contrib/ChangeLog), I will port them to v5-10 as well.
(Feel free to remind me in a couple of days.)

Bye, Reiner.
-- 
       ,,,
      (o o)
---ooO-(_)-Ooo---  |  PGP key available  |  http://rsteib.home.pages.de/

Re: [PATCH] nnir vs. referring articles

[Andreas Seltenreich]

Reiner Steib schrob:

> On Wed, May 31 2006, Andreas Seltenreich wrote:
>
>> isn't the check for a message-id supposed to be in
>> nnir-request-article instead of nnir-retrieve-headers?
>
> (I don't know as I don't use nnir.el)

Sorry, I was mistaken here:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
`(nnchoke-retrieve-headers ARTICLES &optional GROUP SERVER FETCH-OLD)'
     ARTICLES is either a range of article numbers or a list of
     `Message-ID's.  Current back ends do not fully support either--only
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

So both, nnir-retrieve-headers and nnir-request-article may as well
get message-ids. (I did the same mistake in some of my experimental
backends then). But the second hunk of the patch still applies (Btw,
the second hunk doesn't seem to have made it into the repository).

I just got the credentials to commit stuff, so I guess I'll just try
to fix it myself for some exercise :-).

Thanks,
andreas

Re: [PATCH] nnir vs. referring articles

[Andreas Seltenreich]

Reiner Steib <reinersteib+gmane@imap.cc> writes:

> BTW, if nobody finds a problem with the recent nnir.el changes back to
> 2006-04-11 (see contrib/ChangeLog), I will port them to v5-10 as well.
> (Feel free to remind me in a couple of days.)

I'm not sure if there exists a case where the following change breaks
a working configuration:

	* nnir.el (nnir-read-server-parm): Do not unconditionally fall back to
	global variables if nnir-mail-backend is nil.

But I guess it is save to backport the rest of my changes. They
probably fix some long-time outstanding bugs:

<news:87vh76gvtv.fsf@localhost.localnet>
<news:vxkherl42jv.fsf@cinnamon.vanillaknot.com>

Btw, I just realise that the ChangeLog entry is supposed to read
"...if the current method doesn't match nnir-mail-backend and doesn't
have a matching parameter".  Is it legal to modify the ChangeLog file
afterwards? And if, should one also modify the CVS log message (using
the "cvs admin" command)?

regards,
andreas

Re: [PATCH] nnir vs. referring articles

[Andreas Seltenreich]

Andreas Seltenreich <andreas+ding@gate450.dyndns.org> writes:

> Btw, I just realise that the ChangeLog entry is supposed to read
> "...if the current method doesn't match nnir-mail-backend and doesn't
> have a matching parameter".  Is it legal to modify the ChangeLog file
> afterwards? And if, should one also modify the CVS log message (using
> the "cvs admin" command)?

*sigh* looks like I'm still confused from trying to figure out how
nnir interacts with nnoo.  The current entry is correct.

regards,
andreas