Gmail labels are not folders and should be skipped. For example, emails
appear in the inbox and under "All Mail" as soon as it is received. The
code used to wrongly conclude that the email had already been moved and
left it in the inbox.
the WAL files come from sqlite WAL mode,
they have the same name as the database file with an extra `-wal` suffix.
according to https://sqlite.org/wal.html#the_wal_file ,
the WAL file is part of the persistent state of the database
and should be kept with the database if the database is copied or moved.
"Archived Chats" also contain old contact requests now
(an maybe new one if the user archives them),
so, there may be easily some thousands chats in "Archived Chats" -
and the count has no real meaning to the user,
esp. as we not even display the number of "Real Chats".
Might be that this "Link" will go away anyway sooner or later,
however, for now, it is just fine to remove the badge counter.
* add a test for archived requests
* fix archived requests
* move requests but the last one to "Archived Chats"
this way, the app looks familiar after the contact request upgrade.
the subselect was copied from the old get_last_deaddrop_fresh_msg()
(which was removed by the contact request upgrade #2514)
* just move all old requests to "Archived Chats"
ux-wise, the advantage of keeping the last one is questionable,
one may think, always the last one is shown in chatlist.
showing _all_ fresh request is not doable
as past cores did not really take care of that
and the db-state is not consistent in that regard.
that would make the already complicated code even more complicated,
so we decided to go the easy way.
* accounts: update EventEmitter on add_account
* accounts: do not lock waiting for EventEmitter in dc_accounts_add_account
Otherwise dc_accounts_add_account blocks until an event arrives on
some existing account.
Contact request chats are not merged into a single virtual "deaddrop"
chat anymore. Instead, they are shown in the chatlist the same way as
other chats, but sending of messages to them is not allowed and MDNs
are not sent automatically until the chat is "accepted" by the user.
New API:
- dc_chat_is_contact_request(): returns true if chat is a contact
request. In this case option to accept and block the chat via
dc_accept_chat() and dc_block_chat() should be shown in the UI.
- dc_accept_chat(): accept contact request and unblock the chat
- dc_block_chat(): decline contact request and block the chat
Removed API:
- dc_create_chat_by_msg_id(): deprecated 2021-02-07 in favor of
dc_decide_on_contact_request()
- dc_marknoticed_contact(): deprecated 2021-02-07 in favor of
dc_decide_on_contact_request()
- dc_decide_on_contact_request(): this call requires a message ID from
deaddrop chat as input. As deaddrop chat is removed, this call can't
be used anymore.
- dc_msg_get_real_chat_id(): use dc_msg_get_chat_id() instead, the
only difference between these calls was in handling of deaddrop chat
- removed DC_CHAT_ID_DEADDROP and DC_STR_DEADDROP constants
* escape strings added to html
* use more common emojis for connectivity report
all emojis are from 2010 and older now.
an alternative would have been to use css,
however, that may have other issues
and as the whole report is subject to change anyway,
i go for the easy solution.
* use 'modern' meta pattern, remove unused div and styles
* use css instead emojis; looks better that way
also, we have the same look on all systems.
* add connectivity command to repl tool
fix https://github.com/deltachat/deltachat-core-rust/issues/2463fix#2116
The email could be private (i.e. only sent to me) or non-private (i.e. also sent to sb else). Also, it could be a classical email or a chat message. Below, I'm describing for each of the four combinations whether they should be assigned to a chat by create_or_lookup_group() or lookup_chat_by_reply(). Because I needed to use these function names a lot, I shortened them to l:group() and l:by_reply() in this PR description.
(!) means todo, (! -> Done) means I fixed something.
## Private classical email:
l:group() and l:by_reply() must both take care not to put it into group
l:group() no (! -> Done), l:by_reply no (! -> Done)
except for classical MUA replies to two-member-groups, they should be put into the parent group
### wrt alias-support:
A private classical email is very probably not going to be an answer to email that went to an alias address:
Suppose Alice writes to support@example.com.
support@example.com forwards to bob@example.com and claire@example.com.
When Bob answers, he will _probably_ answer `To: alice@example.com, support@example.com` (=> it's a non-private classical email).
With this PR, if he does only answer `To: alice@example.com`, (=> it's a private classical email), Alice's DC will show the answer in the private chat with Bob. Which actually makes more sense than showing it in the support@example.com chat I think. Also, if it was shown in the support@example.com chat, then Alice would answer in the support@example.com chat, then Claire would get Alice's message but not Bob's and therefore miss some context.
That being said - **I could change this**. Pretty easily actually, I would just have to remove the call to `is_probably_private_reply()` from `lookup_chat_by_reply()`. Didn't think through all edge cases yet, but should work.
## Private chat message:
l:group() has to put private chat messages into the group: It won't mistakenly put a message there (because it can rely on Chat-Group-Id). Currently, `is_probably_private_reply()` returns true for private chat messages, but l:group still has to put them into the group chat. (it's not nice that the function called is_probably_private_reply returns true for all private chat messages, but I didn't find any nicer solution) l:by_reply() must not assign it to sth special
l:group yes, l:by_reply no
By the way, for chat messages, `try_getting_grpid()` doesn't look at InReplyTo or References, in order not to put private chat-message replies into the group chat.
For alias-support, the same goes as for the private classical emails.
## Non-private classical email:
Just put it into any group, and if there is none, create one.
_Off-topic:
We currently don't look at the recipients lists, which means that a message can easily be assigned to a group although it was not sent to all group members. One day we could somehow compare the recipients list with the members list, but that needs some more discussing (esp. what do we do if they don't match? Create a new group? Show a hint in the UI?) and is nothing for a bug-fixing PR like this one._
l_group yes, l_by_reply yes, even for outgoing messages (! -> Done, this also was the issue reported by @gerryfrancis in the testing group:
Outgoing messages were not put into a chat by In-Reply-To/References, which is correct for chat messages, but for non-private classical outgoing emails, a new ad-hoc group was created everytime.
So, I added this: https://github.com/deltachat/deltachat-core-rust/pull/2465/files#diff-e7606b521f6710ddc6e5236ba5d7eefc917b7ad744b9e71762fd42830c55485bR703-R711)
## Non-private chat message:
Can be put into chat by l:by_reply() because it must be a group message
l:group yes, l:by_reply yes (to make alias support work if the support person uses DC)
Nothing to test or fix here; we have to put chat group messages into the group, which is trivial. And we have to make sure that alias-support works, which already was well tested.
* changelog: update to include prevous changes
and use new format/structure
* changelog: capitalize API
* changelog: add a missing pr refernece
* Apply suggestions from code review
Co-authored-by: Hocuri <hocuri@gmx.de>
Co-authored-by: Hocuri <hocuri@gmx.de>
