141323 - Cannot store 2 bookmarks to the same host with different ports

Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 51683

(SeaMonkey :: Bookmarks & History, defect)

Description

[Gray]

From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020311
BuildID:    2002031115

In my toolbar bookmark folders.  I have a folder named CMD and one
named CQD.  In each I folder named Hotbot.  When I edit the preferences of one
of the links in the CMD -> Hotbot folder, it changes the CQD -> Hotbot folder
and vice versa.


Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1.Create a new bookmark folder named X1.  May need to be in the toolbar.
2.Create another new folder named X2.
3.Bookmark a page and file it in X1.
4.Bookmark the same page and file it in X2.
5.Manage your bookmarks, go to the link in X1 and change its url.
6.View the X2 folder and it should be changed as well.

Actual Results:  It be broke.

Expected Results:  The 2 folders should be separate.

I can be reached at [e-mail] for other questions.
Thanks!

Comment 1

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

Duplicate of "Unable to have 2 differently named bookmarks for the same url."

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 51683 ***

Comment 2

[Gray]

Actually the initial problem was with URLs to the same host/path but to different
ports.

Comment 3

[Gray]

It has been requested to change this bug to note the different ports issue and
to file it as a separate bug from #51683.

Comment 4

[Dave]

Gray, I understand that you have changed this bug to refer to something
different from what it did when you first reported it.  But I can't reproduce
that problem (at least not on Windows 98) as you state it in the summary.  I
made two different bookmarks, with the same URL except for the port.  For example:
http://www.mozilla.org:80/    and    http://www.mozilla.org:8080/
WFM Win98 2002050608, so maybe it's just Linux.  If you are still able to
produce this bug in Linux, please give steps to reproduce _that_ bug, and I will
check it out in Linux, too.
I also suggest you change this bug's summary back to what it was originally; and
open a new bug with the summary that this bug has now.  I think a completely new
bug would get more attention (no one's paying attention to a bug marked
duplicate).  Did someone suggest that you morph this bug?  (I would be surprised.)