diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'docs')
| -rw-r--r-- | docs/superpowers/plans/2026-08-03-post-0.1.0-usability-closed.md | 111 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | docs/superpowers/plans/2026-08-03-post-0.1.0-usability.md | 80 |
2 files changed, 114 insertions, 77 deletions
diff --git a/docs/superpowers/plans/2026-08-03-post-0.1.0-usability-closed.md b/docs/superpowers/plans/2026-08-03-post-0.1.0-usability-closed.md index a0337f1..206a550 100644 --- a/docs/superpowers/plans/2026-08-03-post-0.1.0-usability-closed.md +++ b/docs/superpowers/plans/2026-08-03-post-0.1.0-usability-closed.md @@ -8202,3 +8202,114 @@ matching a sent path, 780 are still stripped and 27 are spared, every one of them two files with one in another account's Inbox. No arrival is affected. **Size: S.** Done. + +## 112. Toggle unread on a whole thread cannot reach "all unread" on a partly-read thread + +**Observed (user, 2026-08-17):** clicking a thread root and asking to mark the +whole thread unread does not do it. On a seven-message thread with two unread +replies, the result is that every message is toggled unread **except those +two**, which are left as they were. The user asks for an explicit "mark whole +thread read/unread" rather than a toggle. + +**Cause (verified in code):** the action exists, and its direction is the +defect. `toggle_unread_thread` (`src/mainwindow.cpp:931`, `Ctrl+Alt+U`) chooses +between adding and removing by asking +`everySelectedRowHasTag("unread", TagScope::Thread)`, which reads +`ThreadListModel::threadFor(index).tags`. That is notmuch's **union over the +thread** (`CLAUDE.md`, item 110), so a thread containing even one unread message +answers "unread" and the action picks *Mark thread read*. There is no input a +user can give that reaches *Mark thread unread* on a mixed thread: the only +threads that take that branch are the ones already entirely read, and the only +threads reporting "not unread" are the ones the user does not need the action +for. + +The write itself is absolute and correct. `tagSelected` with `TagScope::Thread` +adds or removes `unread` across every message, so the two unread replies in the +report are not skipped by the write. They are the reason the write ran in the +opposite direction from the one the user wanted. + +**A union is not a state, and a toggle needs a state.** This is the same class +as item 110 and the third time the union has produced a defect. Items 105 and 88 +fixed *which object* a toggle resolved; this one is about a thread having no +single answer to give. `everySelectedRowHasTag` is a two-valued predicate over a +three-valued reality: all read, all unread, or mixed. The mixed case is the one +that has no correct toggle direction, and picking either one silently is what +ships as "the action does the wrong thing". + +**Approach.** The user has already named it: stop toggling at thread scope. + +- Split `toggle_unread_thread` into two explicit actions, **Mark thread read** + and **Mark thread unread**, each with a fixed direction. Both appear in the + "Whole thread" submenu, where an entry always carries text, so a fixed label + is honest in a way a toggle's cannot be. +- The message-scoped `toggle_unread` stays a toggle. One message has a real + two-valued state, so the trap does not exist there. Do not "unify" the two: + the asymmetry is the point. + +**Constraints.** + +- **Adding an action is four places**, all enforced by tests that fail + confusingly: `KeyMap::knownActions()`, `defaultBindings()`, the icon table, + and the no-duplicate-icons exception list. See `CLAUDE.md`. Splitting one + action into two means one new entry in each, and the pair shares the twin's + icon under the existing named exemption for thread actions. +- **`Ctrl+Alt+U` is taken by the action being split**, and the whole-thread + bindings are already one modifier out from their twins because `Ctrl+Shift+U` + was claimed. Two directions need two sequences; if a second chord cannot be + found that is not worse than the menu, bind one and leave the other to the + submenu rather than inventing a three-modifier chord nobody will press. +- **This interacts with items 98 and 99**, which is the reason to decide all + three together. 99 asks for a dynamic label on the message-scoped toggle, + which is the opposite move: keep the toggle, make the label tell the truth. + A thread cannot do that, because on a mixed thread there is no true label to + show. Deciding 99 first will produce the wrong answer here by analogy. +- The undo entry must name the direction that ran (`Mark thread unread`), not + the action. `tagSelected` already takes the text, so this comes free from + splitting. +- **The test needs a MIXED thread**, which is the whole defect: a thread whose + messages are all in one state answers identically whichever way the direction + is computed, so a fixture built from a uniformly-unread thread passes against + the bug. Same trap as item 88's opposite-states requirement, recorded in + `CLAUDE.md`. + +**Built 2026-08-25 to the USER'S NOTE, not to the approach above**, which had +this half right and was shipped that way first. The approach proposed splitting +the thread toggle and explicitly said to leave the message-scoped one alone, +deciding 99 separately. The user's note is ONE design across both, and the +entry's own constraint said so ("this interacts with items 98 and 99, which is +the reason to decide all three together") without following it. The half-built +version was handed over, corrected by the user, and rebuilt. + +Four parts, all of them the note's: + +- The thread toggle splits into `mark_thread_read` and `mark_thread_unread`, + both absolute. **Neither carries a default chord**, at the user's choice: + since item 132 a shortcut is a chosen subset, and `Ctrl+Alt+U` meant + whichever direction the union happened to pick, which is what made it wrong. + It is now unbound. +- The message-scoped `toggle_unread` STAYS a toggle, because one message has a + real two-valued state, and gains a label naming the direction it will go. +- On a selection with no single state that entry is **hidden**, chosen over + disabled by the user. There is no honest label for a mixed selection, and + the thread submenu is the route the note points at. +- The label follows a WRITE as well as a selection change, keyed on the + model's `dataChanged` rather than on the six call sites that apply an + optimistic update, so a new one cannot forget. Without it, marking the + current row read left the entry offering to do it again. + +`selectionTagPresence()` is the three-valued predicate this needed; +`everySelectedRowHasTag()` now delegates to it and keeps its two-valued +answer, which is all a DIRECTION needs. A label needs the third value, and +asking a two-valued predicate a three-valued question is what this item was. + +**Three mutations fail:** restoring the union predicate reports "wrong +direction on a mixed thread: Mark thread read", which is the user's original +symptom; showing the action on a mixed selection; and dropping the +`dataChanged` refresh. The suite is 37 of 38, the one failure being item 136 on +an unrelated path, and the four new strings are translated with `lrelease` +reporting 0 unfinished. + +**Closes 99 and 147 with it**, which were the same note recorded twice. + +**Size: S.** Done, at roughly twice the entry's scope because the entry's scope +was wrong. diff --git a/docs/superpowers/plans/2026-08-03-post-0.1.0-usability.md b/docs/superpowers/plans/2026-08-03-post-0.1.0-usability.md index 1f14e67..ab346f5 100644 --- a/docs/superpowers/plans/2026-08-03-post-0.1.0-usability.md +++ b/docs/superpowers/plans/2026-08-03-post-0.1.0-usability.md @@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ taking that too literally. | 96 | A query returning the thread already on display opens onto the placeholder | defect | S | **done** 2026-08-15, unreleased. Split from 66's unverified half, which had a different cause. Reproduced from two screenshots after four measured eliminations | | 97 | An edit made during a sync is reverted in the list when the sync ends | defect | S | **done** 2026-08-15, unreleased. Found by hand-testing item 89's fix. The sync-end refresh ran BEFORE the held-edit flush, so it read a database that still carried the old tag | | 98 | "Important" adds the tag but cannot remove it, unlike every other toggle | defect | XS | **done** 2026-08-17, unreleased. Calls `everySelectedRowHasTag()`, as the entry required. Its reply test needed THREE different states (list-first thread, the reply's own thread, the reply) before it could tell the two wrong answers apart; with the reply defaulted to its thread's state the item 105 mutation stayed green, measured | -| 99 | The unread action is labelled "Toggle unread" whichever way it will go | presentation | S | open; depends on 98's toggle shape, and the label is harder than it looks | +| 99 | The unread action is labelled "Toggle unread" whichever way it will go | presentation | S | **done 2026-08-25**, unreleased, with 112: the user's note is ONE design across both. The label names the direction it will go, and the entry is hidden on a selection with no single state. `refreshUnreadAction()` reads the new three-valued `selectionTagPresence()` | | 100 | The message pane offers Back, Forward, Reload and Save page, none of which mean anything | defect | XS | **done** 2026-08-17, unreleased. `MessageView::removeBrowserActions()` filters the standard menu by `pageAction()` POINTER, never by text; `ViewSource` went with them, and stranded separators are swept | | 101 | Sync is account-aware for edits but not for the account the user is looking at | workflow | S | open; item 49 built the edit half deliberately. Needs a decision, see the entry | | 102 | The rules table shows no note, so the field explaining a rule is invisible until it is opened | workflow | XS | **done** 2026-08-17, unreleased. A Note column before `ColumnCount`, so the appended Matches column stays last. Found a second defect on the way: `restoreState` REFUSES a header state with a different column count, and the sized flags were being set regardless | @@ -178,7 +178,7 @@ taking that too literally. | 106 | A tag change made on one message during a sync is silently lost | defect | XS | **done** 2026-08-16, unreleased. Found by READING while fixing 105, never reported. `flushHeldEdits` re-sent only thread-scoped edits, so a message-scoped one was shown, counted as pending, and never written | | 107 | A thread-scoped write leaves the loaded replies showing their old tags | defect | XS | **done** 2026-08-16, unreleased. `applyTagChange` updated the summary only, so marking a thread read left its expanded replies bold | | 108 | Acting on a thread root means the whole thread, though it displays one message | workflow | M | **done** 2026-08-16, unreleased. `messageScopeFor()` beside `scopeFor()`; five `*_thread` actions in a "Whole thread" submenu on `Ctrl+Alt+<key>`. User-visible: minor bump, `### Upgrading` written | -| 112 | Toggle unread on a whole thread cannot reach "all unread" on a partly-read thread | defect | S | open, found 2026-08-17. A toggle over a UNION has no direction on a mixed thread | +| 112 | Toggle unread on a whole thread cannot reach "all unread" on a partly-read thread | defect | S | **done 2026-08-25**, unreleased. Built to the user's own note rather than to this entry's approach, which had it only half right. The thread toggle splits into two absolute actions AND the message-scoped one keeps its toggle with a dynamic label, hidden when the selection disagrees. Closes 99 and 147 with it | | 113 | No way to see a message's HTML source | information | S | open, 2026-08-17. Chromium's own View source cannot work here; needs our own plain-text dialog. Item 100 removed the dead entry, which was an overreach: the user had not asked for it | | 114 | Save image is offered on every image and does nothing | defect | S | open, found 2026-08-17, re-confirmed by hand 2026-08-20. No `downloadRequested` handler exists, so the request is emitted and never answered. The handler is per-profile, so it must decide per request or it revives the Save link item 127 removed | | 115 | A copy from the message pane gives no confirmation | presentation | XS | **done** 2026-08-19, unreleased. Four entries report, each naming what it copied; connected to the page's own QActions, so the entry is covered wherever it is triggered from | @@ -216,7 +216,7 @@ taking that too literally. | 144 | "Also send a formatted copy" is prominent and does not say what it does | presentation | XS | **done** 2026-08-24, unreleased, inside 142. "Send as HTML", icon and text, alone at the right end of the editor bar where it reads as a control of the editor rather than as a formatting button. The Italian entry was refreshed with it, and `lrelease` reports 477 finished, 0 unfinished | | 145 | Cc and Bcc are permanent rows on every composer | presentation | S | **done** 2026-08-24, unreleased, inside 142. A `QToolButton` disclosure beside To:. `revealCcBccIfUsed()` is the load-bearing half the entry called for: it only ever SHOWS, never hides, so nothing but the user's own click can make a field holding an address invisible. `ComposeContext` carries no `bcc` at all, so the seeded-Bcc case can only arrive from a reopened draft, which is what its test drives. The LABEL is hidden with each field: a `QFormLayout` holds the two as separate items, so hiding the line edit alone strands a `Cc:` over empty space | | 146 | The unsynced-changes count cannot be opened to see what it counts | information | S | **duplicate of 119**, recorded 2026-08-23 from the notes. Same request, and 119 already carries the blocker: one of the four things the count sums holds no message ids, so a list cannot be complete without changing how the count is kept | -| 147 | Toggle unread reads the same whichever way it will go | presentation | S | **duplicate of 99**, recorded 2026-08-23 from the notes. The notes ask for exactly what 99 describes: "Mark as read" on an unread message and the reverse. 99 already records that the label is harder than it looks, since a multi-row selection has no single direction | +| 147 | Toggle unread reads the same whichever way it will go | presentation | S | **duplicate of 99**, recorded 2026-08-23 from the notes, and closed with it on 2026-08-25 | | 148 | Ctrl+W does not close the composer | discoverability | XS | **done** 2026-08-24, unreleased. A `QAction` parented to the composer, so it is a WindowShortcut dispatched to the active composer only and the main window's namespace is untouched, exactly like the formatting shortcuts. It calls `close()` rather than doing anything of its own: `closeEvent()` already decides whether the draft is saved, and a second route out that skipped it would lose the message. Not registered in `KeyMap`, so item 132's rules do not apply | | 149 | A reply's cursor lands on the attribution line, not on blank space | defect | XS | **done** 2026-08-24, unreleased, in TWO passes. The first fixed the cursor within each branch (`End` under Above, `Start` under Below) and the user still saw the old layout, because the branches were already right and the DEFAULT was wrong: `above` shipped, and the layout asked for is what `below` produces. Default flipped, and the composer now focuses the body whenever To: is already filled, which a Reply and a Forward always are. Both halves were invisible to the existing `theQuotePositionDecidesWhereTheQuoteLands`, which asserts the quote's position and never the cursor's | | 150 | The receive-only ribbon stays up after the message that raised it is gone | defect | S | **done** 2026-08-24, unreleased. One line in `MessageView::clear()`, beside the blocked-content bar, the stale notice and the attachment bar it already reset by hand. Only `setReceiveOnlyAccount()` hid the ribbon, which every SELECTION change reaches, so a row-to-row move was never the reproducer: it survived the FOUR routes that blank the pane without one (`clear_pane`, `clear_selection`, a new query, a multi-row selection). The first test written for it passed against the defect for exactly that reason | @@ -537,80 +537,6 @@ reaches it (item 42), so most of this exists. **Size: S** for the on-demand button, XS for the visibility half. Ask which. -## 112. Toggle unread on a whole thread cannot reach "all unread" on a partly-read thread - -**Observed (user, 2026-08-17):** clicking a thread root and asking to mark the -whole thread unread does not do it. On a seven-message thread with two unread -replies, the result is that every message is toggled unread **except those -two**, which are left as they were. The user asks for an explicit "mark whole -thread read/unread" rather than a toggle. - -**Cause (verified in code):** the action exists, and its direction is the -defect. `toggle_unread_thread` (`src/mainwindow.cpp:931`, `Ctrl+Alt+U`) chooses -between adding and removing by asking -`everySelectedRowHasTag("unread", TagScope::Thread)`, which reads -`ThreadListModel::threadFor(index).tags`. That is notmuch's **union over the -thread** (`CLAUDE.md`, item 110), so a thread containing even one unread message -answers "unread" and the action picks *Mark thread read*. There is no input a -user can give that reaches *Mark thread unread* on a mixed thread: the only -threads that take that branch are the ones already entirely read, and the only -threads reporting "not unread" are the ones the user does not need the action -for. - -The write itself is absolute and correct. `tagSelected` with `TagScope::Thread` -adds or removes `unread` across every message, so the two unread replies in the -report are not skipped by the write. They are the reason the write ran in the -opposite direction from the one the user wanted. - -**A union is not a state, and a toggle needs a state.** This is the same class -as item 110 and the third time the union has produced a defect. Items 105 and 88 -fixed *which object* a toggle resolved; this one is about a thread having no -single answer to give. `everySelectedRowHasTag` is a two-valued predicate over a -three-valued reality: all read, all unread, or mixed. The mixed case is the one -that has no correct toggle direction, and picking either one silently is what -ships as "the action does the wrong thing". - -**Approach.** The user has already named it: stop toggling at thread scope. - -- Split `toggle_unread_thread` into two explicit actions, **Mark thread read** - and **Mark thread unread**, each with a fixed direction. Both appear in the - "Whole thread" submenu, where an entry always carries text, so a fixed label - is honest in a way a toggle's cannot be. -- The message-scoped `toggle_unread` stays a toggle. One message has a real - two-valued state, so the trap does not exist there. Do not "unify" the two: - the asymmetry is the point. - -**Constraints.** - -- **Adding an action is four places**, all enforced by tests that fail - confusingly: `KeyMap::knownActions()`, `defaultBindings()`, the icon table, - and the no-duplicate-icons exception list. See `CLAUDE.md`. Splitting one - action into two means one new entry in each, and the pair shares the twin's - icon under the existing named exemption for thread actions. -- **`Ctrl+Alt+U` is taken by the action being split**, and the whole-thread - bindings are already one modifier out from their twins because `Ctrl+Shift+U` - was claimed. Two directions need two sequences; if a second chord cannot be - found that is not worse than the menu, bind one and leave the other to the - submenu rather than inventing a three-modifier chord nobody will press. -- **This interacts with items 98 and 99**, which is the reason to decide all - three together. 99 asks for a dynamic label on the message-scoped toggle, - which is the opposite move: keep the toggle, make the label tell the truth. - A thread cannot do that, because on a mixed thread there is no true label to - show. Deciding 99 first will produce the wrong answer here by analogy. -- The undo entry must name the direction that ran (`Mark thread unread`), not - the action. `tagSelected` already takes the text, so this comes free from - splitting. -- **The test needs a MIXED thread**, which is the whole defect: a thread whose - messages are all in one state answers identically whichever way the direction - is computed, so a fixture built from a uniformly-unread thread passes against - the bug. Same trap as item 88's opposite-states requirement, recorded in - `CLAUDE.md`. - -**Size: S.** The write path is already correct and thread-scoped; the work is -the action split, the four registration sites, the binding decision, and a test -over a mixed thread. - - ## 113. No way to see a message's HTML source **Observed (user, 2026-08-17):** reviewing item 100's removals, "view source |