GNU bug report logs - #75626
31.0.50; Dired misses or double-processes files when auto-revert-mode is enabled

Previous Next

Full log

Message #38 received at 75626 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ship Mints <shipmints <at> gmail.com>
To: Tassilo Horn <tsdh <at> gnu.org>
Cc: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>, 75626 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Subject: Re: bug#75626: 31.0.50; Dired misses or double-processes files when
 auto-revert-mode is enabled
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2025 06:17:09 -0500

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

I'm sure you know this...you could add dired-mode to the
global-auto-revert-ignore-modes list if you
have global-auto-revert-non-file-buffers bound to t, which I'm guessing you
do.

On Sat, Jan 18, 2025 at 3:43 AM Tassilo Horn <tsdh <at> gnu.org> wrote:

> Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de> writes:
>
> >> Well, there are exactly 100 files.  So it processed 62 files twice,
> >> compressing them first and then uncompressing them again (or skipped
> >> some and processed other even more).
> >
> > It could be that the order of the marked files changed after
> > reverting.
> >
> > But even if not: if you look at the use of the variable
> > `next-position' in `dired-map-over-marks', it is also possible to get
> > such an effect if the line lengths change.
> >
> > So the command `dired-do-compress' is not robust against this effect.
> > Other commands calculate the complete list of marked files first,
> > `dired-do-chxxx' and `dired-do-chmod' for example.  So I think it is
> > not unavoidable that it is like that.
>
> What is the reason that there are two different approaches to process
> all marked files, i.e., dired-map-over-marks vs. dired-get-marked-files?
>
> Bye,
> Tassilo
>
>
>
>

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Previous Next

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