Subject: [sup-talk] [BUG] Killed thread and unread count

From: [email-masked] (Pierre Baillet)
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 11:22:29 +0100

Hi,

When an unread thread is killed, it is still marked as belonging to +inbox
and hence is accounted as unread by sup in the "Label list". However, when
displaying the +inbox labelled emails, this thread does not appear. I think
this behaviour may confuse the user. Shouldn't killed threads be marked as
read ?

-- 
Pierre Baillet <pierre at baillet.name>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/sup-talk/attachments/20071108/cbc7065b/attachment.html

---

From: [email-masked] (William Morgan)
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 15:57:55 -0800

Hi Pierre,

Excerpts from Pierre Baillet's message of Thu Nov 08 02:22:29 -0800 2007:
> When an unread thread is killed, it is still marked as belonging to
> +inbox and hence is accounted as unread by sup in the "Label list".
> However, when displaying the +inbox labelled emails, this thread does
> not appear. I think this behaviour may confuse the user. Shouldn't
> killed threads be marked as read ?

Excellent question. This is actually a symptom of a larger problem,
which is that threading information is never explicitly stored in the
Sup index, and that being killed is a thread-level, not a message-level,
feature. (A killed thread is a thread in which at least one message has
the label :killed.)

So even if you marked a thread as unread before you killed it, the next
time a message in that thread was received, it would count as a new
message in the inbox, even though it never showed up.

In order for unread messages in killed threads to not count as unread
messages, Sup would have to maintain a list of all message-ids in all
killed threads, and check new messages against that list before
incrementing the unread message count. Not impossible, but substantially
harder than just marking killed messages as unread. I've added it to the
TODO.

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