GNU bug report logs - #70579
30.0.50; gnus: Wrong unread count in the Group buffer

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Eric Abrahamsen <eric <at> ericabrahamsen.net>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 70579 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, jimjoe <at> gmx.net
Subject: bug#70579: 30.0.50; gnus: Wrong unread count in the Group buffer
Date: Thu, 09 May 2024 21:14:19 -0700

Eric Abrahamsen <eric <at> ericabrahamsen.net> writes:

> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Ping!  Eric, can we make some progress here?
>>
>>> Cc: jimjoe <at> gmx.net
>>> From: Eric Abrahamsen <eric <at> ericabrahamsen.net>
>>> Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2024 21:34:45 -0700
>>> 
>>> James Thomas via "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of
>>> text editors" <bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org> writes:
>>> 
>>> > - (Preferably starting with an empty drafts folder) Compose a message
>>> >   and save it.
>>> > - Open the drafts group, press e on the message and then kill the new
>>> >   buffer; then (incidentally, if you now do '/ N' then this bug does not
>>> >   arise) delete the message (B DEL)
>>> > - Press q
>>> > - The message count is wrong (but can be corrected with M-g)
>>> >
>>> > cf. In gnus.general (gnus-summary-goto-article "87y192lr8f.fsf <at> gmx.net")
>
> I've made some progress here -- the root of the problem seems to be
> that, when we hit "e" in the draft summary buffer to resume editing a
> draft, Gnus "jumps ahead" in message numbers. Basically what "editing"
> actually means is that the old draft is deleted, and a new draft is
> started, but the new draft has a article number that's the previous
> draft's number + 2, and the "draft" group's active number is also
> inflated (for instance (12 . 14) when it should be (12 . 13)). I was
> also able to get it to jump three numbers in some cases.
>
>>From this point, *any* normal usage will end up correcting the error:
> using "C-c C-k" to kill the editing buffer (instead of "C-x k") or as
> you noted any of the commands that lead to refreshing the unread count.
> But if you don't use any of those commands, you'll see the inflated
> active/unread count when you get back to the *Group* buffer (the "B DEL"
> isn't necessary for the recipe, and in fact at that stage the message
> under point has already been deleted).
>
> That's as far as I've gotten, and I'll keep working on why the article
> number starts off inflated. But in the meantime, the solution is "don't
> do that".

Sorry, that sounded a bit unfriendly, when I was the one who asked you
to submit the bug report! An hour or two of chasing Gnus function calls
will do that to you...

Previous Next

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