1369591 - Times Between Noon and 1:00pm Incorrectly Sorted

Status: RESOLVED INVALID

(Thunderbird :: Folder and Message Lists, defect)

Description

[David E. Ross]

Attachment: TBird_sort.jpg

Windows 7 Ultimate SP 1
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1
View > Layout > Wide View
View > Sort by > (Date, Ascending, Threaded)
Protocols:  POP3 and SMTP

Newsgroup messages with times between noon and 1:00pm are sorted after other messages with times that are also PM.  In the attached JPEG file, a newsgroup message with the time 1:16 PM is sorted before a message with the time 12:56 PM.  An analysis of the message sources shows the following:  

Original message
Displayed: 12:56 PM
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2017 14:56:51 -0500 [1 Jun 2017 19:56:51 UTC]
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 12:56:16 -0700 [1 Jun 2017 19:56:16 UTC]

Reply
Displayed: 1:16 PM
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2017 15:16:31 -0500 [1 Jun 2017 20:16:13 UTC]
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 21:16:26 +0100 [1 Jun 2017 22:16:26 UTC]

It is obvious that the original message was actually earlier than the reply.  A possible solution would be to convert all date-time stamps to UTC and use the results for sorting.  

While this might seem to be a minor problem, there is no workaround.  Thus, the Severity is at least Normal.

Comment 1

[Jorg K (CEST = GMT+2)]

Strange, so which date/time does it use for sorting right now? What happens when sorting on the "Received" column?

Comment 2

[Alfred Peters [:infofrommozilla]]

The threads are sorted according to the latest message. If you unfold the thread, you will surely find a newer message.

Comment 3

[Jorg K (CEST = GMT+2)]

Thanks Alfred, I missed that the view is threaded. So for some reason the "Re: Delete eMails" is not threaded into the "Delete eMails" here. Most like the reply from Chris Ramsden has got incorrect references in the headers so it doesn't get threaded properly.

David, if you want to pursue this further, please show an expanded view. To look into the threading error we'd need the references from the reply and from the thread.

Comment 4

[David E. Ross]

Yes, this is the result of a broken thread and is a consequence of fixing bug #20385. I have submitted bug #1369780 to replace this one.