276650 - Collapsing a mail folder turns off boldface indication of unread messages in nested folder

Status: VERIFIED DUPLICATE of bug 285144

(Thunderbird :: Mail Window Front End, defect)

Description

[John David Galt]

If mail folder A contains nested folder B that contains unread messages, but A
itself does not have any unread messages, then closing folder A (by clicking its
[-] box in the folder-tree display pane) incorrectly causes A's name to change
from boldface to normal type, so it can look as though I've read all my mail
when I haven't yet.

Comment 1

[Mike Cowperthwaite]

(In reply to comment #0)
> closing [collapsing] folder A (by clicking its [-] box in the folder-tree
> display pane) incorrectly causes A's name to change from boldface to
> normal type

*Before* the folder is collapsed, it's bold?  Are there unread messages in 
folder A, or are you expecting the bold only for the unread messages in B?
If there are unread messages in A, are you seeing the unread count for folder A 
continue to be displayed after the folder has collapsed?

Are you running with any extensions?  Any theme besides the default theme?

What I see with TB 1.0, Win2K, is that if A contains no unread messages and B 
contains some, then with A expanded, A's name is normal and B's name is bold 
with a count.  When A is collapsed, A's name goes to bold, with no count.

Comment 2

[John David Galt]

OK, I was imprecise, so sue me.  When A gets expanded to show its subfolders, A
becomes plain text and B is shown in boldface (with number of unread messages).
 When A gets "unexpanded" again it does NOT return to boldface like it should,
since the unread messages are still present in B.

I'm using one extension, Enigmail.  No themes.

Comment 3

[tmschk]

(In reply to comment #2)

I'm experiencing the same "bug" on version 1.0 (20041206) win xp pro sp2 using
POP3 to get mail.  

But this is more "serious" because I'm using filters to channel mails into
various folders.  After I getmail, some mail gets put into some folders and
subfolders, but neither the toplevel folders nor subfolder does not show in
BOLD.  This could be "dangerous" since one is misled into thinking that there's
no new mail in the subfolders.  I remember it working properly when I newly
installed it.  But now it seems to not function at all.  All new mail to Inbox
however does make "Inbox" bold.

Steps to reproduce:
1. Create some folders and subfolders.
2. Create some filters to channel mail to the folders and subfolders.
3. Send mail to yourself with specified filter criteria.
4. Use POP to get mail.

Result: The folders nor subfolders are not bold.  They become bold only when you
click on the folder/subfolder.

Expected result: After getting mail, folder and subfolders should show up bold
after mail gets channeled to them via the filters.

-Kek

Comment 4

[tmschk]

(In reply to comment #3)
Please ignore my comment #3.  Sorry for the noise, but I've discovered something
else related...

I've just discovered that TBird doesn't quite like it when I have Local Folders
and the Account Folder pointing to the same local directory.  When Local Folders
and Account Folder point to the same local dir, the boldedness of folders
happens correctly in the Local Folders.  The problem seems to go away when I
make Local Folders point to a different dir.

However I've noticed this bug:

If there is unread mail in the last subfolder of a toplevel folder, the toplevel
folder doesn't show as bold when collapsing the toplevel folder under the
following procedure:

1. Create a folder called "TOP"
2. Under TOP, create 4 subfolders "SUB1" - "SUB4".
3. Put some mail in each subfolder.
4. Mark one mail in SUB2 and SUB4 each as unread.
5. Collapse TOP; TOP is bold as expected.
6. Expand TOP, go to SUB2 and mark all mail as read.
7. Collapse TOP; TOP is NOT bold although there's still unread mail in SUB4.

But now, if you mark all mail in SUB1-SUB4 as read, and then go into SUB4 to
mark one mail read and collapse TOP, TOP is bold.

-Kek
This is version 1.0 (20041206), win xp pro sp2.  Default theme, no extensions.

Comment 5

[Flavio Stanchina]

I'm seeing the same problem as in comment #2. Well, in actual fact, it's my
*boss* who's seeing this problem, which makes it quite a bit more annoying. ;)

Here the folders are not local folders but IMAP folders on a Courier-IMAP server.

I didn't try to reproduce the problem by following comment #4 yet. Will do.

Comment 6

[Flavio Stanchina]

I could reproduce the problem by following comment #4. Note, however, that the
TOP filder will become bold again if you collapse and reopen the entire account
(or an higher-level folder, if you have any).

Comment 7

[Mike Cowperthwaite]

Bug 285144 has been proposed as a dupe of this one.  I suspect that's true, but 
I would say this should be duped to that because the problem description 
contains a critical point not mentioned in this one's (altho comment 4 here 
does):  The top level folder "A" needs to contain multiple folders with unread 
mail, B1 and B2, and one of those subfolders needs to have all its mail marked 
unread.  THEN when A is collapsed, it does not show bold.

John Galt, if that matches your experience, please mark this bug as a duplicate 
of that one,

Comment 8

[John David Galt]

(In reply to comment #7)
It sounds similar and may be the same bug, but in my experience there is no
requirement that one of the folders contain only unread messages.  (Or did you
intend to write "read" instead of "unread"?)

Comment 9

[Mike Cowperthwaite]

(In reply to comment #8)
> (In reply to comment #7)
> It sounds similar and may be the same bug, but in my experience there is no
> requirement that one of the folders contain only unread messages.  (Or did you
> intend to write "read" instead of "unread"?)

Whoops, yes -- I meant "... one of those subfolders needs to have all its mail 
marked READ."  It seems to be that when a subfolder loses its bolding for 
"contains unread," that propogates up to the parent, even if the parent has 
other subfolders with unread messages.

Comment 10

[John David Galt]

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 285144 ***