On Monday, 31 March 2025 03:07:22 Central European Summer Time Duncan wrote: > Meanwhile, in my function as the de facto list "pan historian" as someone > once called me,
I like that title 😃 > I noticed some time ago that the as-documented-in-original-clients OR > behavior seemed to be absent. Only AND worked. This is probably why. The OR is not used, so I've removed it from branch apply-rules-cleanup (which is *now* pushed) > (Contrary to the implication of the above the AND code worked. Not being > a coder so just relying on the above comment and pan behavior, I'm > assuming the "totally ignores the result" bit may be because the result is > only later applied based on other conditions.) Well, the AND rule is a bit of a misnomer. In fact, Rules can only be set up by the menu "Edit preferences -> Actions tab" which has no notion of "AND" rules. It's just a list of rules that are applied (or not) on an article depending on its score. I guess that most of the code of former rules-filter file was cut'n'pasted from article-filter and not completely refactored, hence the confusion and seg fault I've seen. Note that I've renamed rules-filter to article-rules, because this functionality is not a filter, it's a set of rules to apply on article. I've removed most of the code in apply-rules because applying rules on threads does not make sense but makes core dumps (see issue #162 for details). > (I haven't actually looked at mentioned TODOs in the mentioned branch; > maybe you mention the missing OR implementation there?) Sorry, that's yet another thing I had forgotten last Sunday. This branch is now up to date. I would appreciate if you could test this cleaned up rules functionality. All the best _______________________________________________ Pan-users mailing list Pan-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pan-users
