265833 - Thunderbird always re-downloads WebSVN RSS feeds

Status: RESOLVED WORKSFORME

(MailNews Core :: Feed Reader, defect)

Description

[Runako Godfrey]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040913 Firefox/0.10.1
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040913 Firefox/0.10.1

I'm using WebSVN 1.6.1 (http://websvn.tigris.org/) to display a source code
repository.  I add the RSS feeds to Thunderbird, and I can view the resultant
pages fine.  However, every time I pull do Get All Mail, Thunderbird pulls
another copy of the WebSVN feeds, even if nothing has changed.  So after a few
days, I have a ton of duplicate entries in my view.  

I'm not sure if this is a WebSVN bug or a Thunderbird bug.  I'll try to look at
the WebSVN code when I get a chance.  However, the feed looks fine to me at
first glance -- it only has a single entry per commit

Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Add a WebSVN RSS feed to Thunderbird.
2. Get All Mail twice.
3. Notice duplicate entries.

Actual Results:  
Multiple entries for each commit.

Expected Results:  
One entry per commit.

Comment 1

[Runako Godfrey]

I've since upgraded to Thunderbird 0.9 and the behavior has changed.  When
attempting to add the RSS feed via the RSS Account Settings dialog, I get an
error after entering the feed URL and clicking ok.  (The window below still says
"Verifying the feed...")  The error dialog says "<my RSS URL> is not a valid RSS
feed."  

Firefox 1.0 final will read this feed as a live bookmark.  This is still using
WebSVN 1.6.1.

Comment 2

[Mike Cowperthwaite]

TB has improved its feed parsing since 1.0.x; is this still showing up as an 
invalid feed with current builds?  If so, it would be very helpful if you could 
provide a public URL for that feed.

See bug 258465 about duplicate entries.

Comment 3

[Mike Cowperthwaite]

No response from reporter  => WFM
Runako Godfrey, feel free to reopen if you're still seeing the problem with a 
1.5 build (e.g. 1.5b2), but provide information as requested in comment 1.