Re: [Evolution] "Include threads:" setting for Search Folders?

[Patrick O'Callaghan <poc usb ve>]

On Thu, 2017-11-02 at 09:44 +0100, Milan Crha wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-10-30 at 21:58 -0700, Paul Rozdeba wrote:
> > Find items which match: any of the following conditions
> > Message location: is <account>/Inbox
> > Automatically update on any source folder change (checked)
> > Search folder sources: All local and active remote folders
>
>       Hi,
> we had some talk about this on IRC with Paul too. I'm not going to copy
> it here, that would not make much sense. I'll comment on the above
> settings only.
>
> I believe, and your tests prove it, that the Message Location option
> has a precedence over the Include Threads option. That means, even if
> you let the search folder use all accounts and folders, it first
> ignores all but the Inbox folder. After that it gets all these messages
> and tries to find also thread-related messages which would otherwise be
> hidden.
>
> I tried a similar settings here and avoiding the Message Location makes
> it work (I replaced it with "Sender contains", then made it to show
> "All related" thread messages).
>
> About the respective Include Threads options, I also do not exactly
> know what they do, but if I'd guess, then, for satisfied messages:
>    All related - shows whole thread
>    Replies - thread subtree
>    Replies and parents - thread subtree and path up
>    No reply or parent - side branches
>
> Imagine a thread like this:
>
>    A
>     B
>     |-C (chosen)
>     |  D
>     |  |-E
>     |  F
>     G
>      H
>
> Then when only C message is chosen by the filter (aka the C satisfies
> the filter options), then the Include Threads adds other messages as:
>    All related - whole thread
>    Replies - C,D,E,F
>    Replies and parents - A,B,C,D,E,F
>    No reply or parent - C,G,H
> Though I'm quite unsure what the last option would be good for, thus
> one might better test the actual behavior than just guess, as I did.

Thanks Milan. I've never had a need for this but my first reaction is
that if something is so complicated to explain then perhaps it should
be either removed or rethought. This kind of thing is the inevitable
cruft that arises with any project that has gone on for so long, with
several generations of developers. The fact that you yourself have to
guess how it works would seem to indicate that it isn't actually
specified anywhere.

poc