GNU bug report logs - #68510
Bug in gnus' C-u S v

Previous Next

Full log

Message #19 received at 68510 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eric Abrahamsen <eric <at> ericabrahamsen.net>
To: Tomas Volf <~@wolfsden.cz>
Cc: 68510 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#68510: Bug in gnus' C-u S v
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2024 14:03:53 -0800

Tomas Volf <~@wolfsden.cz> writes:

> On 2024-01-19 08:10:25 -0800, Eric Abrahamsen wrote:
>> 
>> On 01/19/24 12:55 PM, Michael Albinus wrote:
>> > Tomas Volf <~@wolfsden.cz> writes:
>> >
>> >> Hello,
>> >
>> > Hi Tomas,
>> >
>> >> I think I found a bug in debbugs, however I am not sure if the bug is in
>> >> documentation or in the code.  Steps to reproduce (in emacs -Q):
>> >>
>> >> In *scratch* buffer:
>> >>    (require 'debbugs-gnu)
>> >>    (debbugs-gnu-bugs 66531)
>> >>
>> >> In the new buffer open the message and navigate cursor to last message from Mike
>> >> Gran (47: ).  Now, when I want to reply, I press S v and it opens a buffer with
>> >> (addresses are censored):
>> >>
>> >>     To: Mike Gran <xxx>
>> >>     Cc: Tomas Volf <xxx>,  "xxx <at> debbugs-gnu-org" <xxx>
>> >>     Subject: Re: bug#66531: [PATCH] ftw: Fix getuid-or-false, getgid-or-false macros.
>> >>     From: me <at> hostname.mail-host-address-is-not-set
>> >>     --text follows this line--
>> >>
>> >> So far that is expected.  However when I want to quote the original message, I can, based on the reading of the manual, use C-u S v:
>> >>
>> >>> If prefix argument YANK is non-nil, the original article(s) will be yanked
>> >>> automatically.
>> >>
>> >> However while that does work, additional undocumented (and unwanted) changes are
>> >> done as well,producing a following message:
>> >>
>> >>     To: Mike Gran <xxx>
>> >>     Cc: Tomas Volf <xxx>, Tomas Volf <xxx>, control <at> debbugs-gnu-org,
>> >> xxx <at> debbugs-gnu-org
>> >>     Subject: Re: bug#66531: [PATCH] ftw: Fix getuid-or-false,
>> >> getgid-or-false macros., bug#66531: [PATCH] ftw: Fix getuid-or-false,
>> >> getgid-or-false macros., bug#66531: [PATCH] ftw: Fix getuid-or-false,
>> >> getgid-or-false macros., bug#66531: [PATCH] ftw: Fix getuid-or-false,
>> >> getgid-or-false macros., control message for bug #66531, control
>> >> message for bug #66531
>> >>     From: me <at> hostname.mail-host-address-is-not-set
>> >>     --text follows this line--
>> >>     Mike Gran <xxx> writes:
>> >>
>> >>     [..]
>> >>
>> >> Notice that the subject is pretty weird, and for some reason there is a control
>> >> server in the CC list.  I do not know if this is expected (well, at least I did
>> >> not expect it), but it at the very least does not seem to be documented.  Based
>> >> on my reading of the C-h k S v I would have expected just the "Mike Gran
>> >> <xxx> writes:" change.
>> >
>> > Zhanks for the report, I could reproduce it. However, it doesn't seem to
>> > be a Debbugs bug, but rather a Gnus bug. I've reproduced it by using
>> > Gnus w/o Debbugs.
>> >
>> > For this, I've started a new Emacs instance w/o debbugs. I've opened
>> > Gnus, and browsed the gmane server {nntp:news.gmane.io} for the group
>> > gmane.lisp.guile.bugs. Message 10682 is the one you've mentioned above.
>> >
>> > Typing in the Summary buffer 'C-u S v' shows the error.
>> >
>> > I'm therefore changing the subject, adding Eric Abrahamsen into Cc.
>> 
>> I can't reproduce this exact result, but I can get buggy behavior -- in
>> my case it pulls in the subject of the *next* message in my Summary
>> buffer, in my case for bug #68506. Actually it seems to do a little
>> something different every time, also depending on whether I have things
>> edebugged or not. Fun!
>
> It is interesting you cannot reproduce it exactly.  Now I see I forgot to state
> an Emacs version (sorry!), I am using 29.1 release.  But based on your
> description this sounds indeed like a fun bug.
>
>> 
>> I suspect the prefix argument is being interpreted wrong somehow. I
>> wouldn't be surprised if Tomas's subject line looks like that because
>> '(4) is resulting in four copies of the subject.
>
> I just tried M-1 S v (Which I *think* should sent '(1)?  Sorry, still pretty
> new.) and I still got it 4 times.  Maybe the number of repetitions is due to
> there being 4 messages above this one in the thread?  Just guessing.

My guess was pretty tenuous! But that is potentially useful information
about there being 4 messages above this one in the thread.

>> 
>> Tomas, would you first confirm that running "S V"
>> (gnus-summary-very-wide-reply-with-original) behaves correctly?
>> Essentially that's supposed to do exactly what "C-u S v" does, and it
>> works correctly for me, which is part of why I think it's a prefix
>> argument problem. I don't even know why we have all these variants.
>
> Yes, I can confirm that S V works as expected.  Let me know if there is anything
> else I should test.

That will do for now! Thanks for the report.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.