From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from out0.migadu.com (out0.migadu.com [IPv6:2001:41d0:2:267::]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D39E41F934 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 00:00:26 +0000 (UTC) X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kyleam.com; s=key1; t=1609891222; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Sssa78Pz1V/LCKV9r/kU/h1c9HnHlI6xN8AdWLXpYjU=; b=i6aw527OwpzeXVa/aiIWN66NI8EiezZ7+Yl6RD+CtCD9KDucY3Ib8i9AUJI6HY4a8I2/w/ t3ilx5RzS3DgYheRg/P58u2MCp809a2Jn1GVHYy4S+vQKc6pp5yAsdAUVceaBeBoyR/x3n lKMO+tShynNE7Qsasoy+rjeifvSTMKawc2Ml6MjzpNRHrICAoOYnD+8g22VA3Prin6zx1g Ia0XIMLjN6KwfE2/UsmBHPckbHJ+RKjFFLFyo6qe963cqxBFI/Jgnj1OraK97w6bd5Xc+f 0PSTB+J5Z+0Rn47yK4t/nq5ccfnGH+6O11NaYo7UV0hmtGcImlUvCR+r+4OJxw== From: Kyle Meyer To: Eric Wong Cc: meta@public-inbox.org Subject: Re: JSON field names in terminal/pager output In-Reply-To: <20210105095646.GA26897@dcvr> References: <20210105095646.GA26897@dcvr> Message-ID: <878s97ylws.fsf@kyleam.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT X-Migadu-Auth-User: kyle@kyleam.com Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2021 00:00:21 GMT List-Id: Eric Wong writes: > Are "f", "s", "t", "c" acceptable field names to show in JSON > output? (instead of from/subject/to/cc) In my view they are, and, as you mention next, I like that they align with the search prefixes. > Anyways, the current JSON output looks something like the > following, comments inline > > [{ [...] Nice. > "references": [ > "<20210105090437.22801-1-e@80x24.org>", > "<20210105090437.22801-5-e@80x24.org>" > ], > > # we don't actually support searching on rereference, yet; > # not sure if it's needed since we already do thread # expansion Is "thread # expansion" the "num -> tid -> nums" mapping done by Over's expand_thread()? And, from the CLI, that will be triggered by `thread|t', right?