Closed Bug 515713 Opened 17 years ago Closed 17 years ago

reply-all to email that has a newsgroup header as well is broken

Categories

(Thunderbird :: Mail Window Front End, defect)

defect
Not set
normal

Tracking

(Not tracked)

RESOLVED FIXED
Thunderbird 3.0rc1

People

(Reporter: davida, Assigned: davida)

Details

(Whiteboard: [no l10n impact])

Attachments

(1 file, 1 obsolete file)

If I reply-all to an email that also has a newsgroup: header, I get a dialog saying something like "we can't send to both mail and newsgroup at once. hitting ok will ignore the newsgroup". There's a checkbox saying "don't ask me again". if you check the checkbox and hit OK, then sending doesn't happen.
Flags: blocking-thunderbird3?
Flags: blocking-thunderbird3? → blocking-thunderbird3+
Target Milestone: --- → Thunderbird 3.0rc1
Attached patch patch (obsolete) — — Splinter Review
god this is awful code. Anyway, this code path was never going to work with an undefined var.
Assignee: nobody → david.ascher
Attachment #400694 - Flags: review?(bugzilla)
Attached patch better patch — — Splinter Review
may as well not make the code worse.
Attachment #400695 - Flags: review?(bugzilla)
Whiteboard: [no l10n impact]
Attachment #400694 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #400694 - Flags: review?(bugzilla)
Whiteboard: [no l10n impact] → [no l10n impact][needs review standard8]
Comment on attachment 400695 [details] [diff] [review] better patch The patch works fine. I'd really like to say indent the lines in the try part, but 200 lines is quite a lot. Do you really need the try/catch? When I tried without your patch the details were pretty clear without needed additional logging.
Attachment #400695 - Flags: review?(bugzilla) → review+
Comment on attachment 400695 [details] [diff] [review] better patch I don't need the try catch for this code -- I want the try catch for any future failure in this code which would be completely silent otherwise. We have to stop letting exceptions go to /dev/null at some point, but the core bug there feels futuristic. try/catch around scary long and undertested code feels like a good "braces & suspenders" model to me. But if you don't want it, i can take it out.
(In reply to comment #4) > (From update of attachment 400695 [details] [diff] [review]) > I don't need the try catch for this code -- I want the try catch for any future > failure in this code which would be completely silent otherwise. Not quite, I've just done a bit more digging. On 1.9.1 I get an error dumped to the command line console. On trunk the error goes to the error console. 1.9.2 is the same as trunk. The culprit is globalOverlay.js - bug 490150 improved it to use the Components.utils.reportError function. > We have to stop letting exceptions go to /dev/null at some point, but the core > bug there feels futuristic. try/catch around scary long and undertested code > feels like a good "braces & suspenders" model to me. But if you don't want it, > i can take it out. I agree. I think for 1.9.1 we need the try catch and for 1.9.2 and later we can loose it. Therefore my proposal is that we leave the indentation as-is and stick a comment in along the lines of: // This try/catch ensures errors make it to the error console on the // MOZILLA_1_9_1_BRANCH. On 1.9.2 and later, globalOverlay.js has been fixed // to put the errors to the error console for us and therefore this try/catch // can be removed. Then when we come to clean up from the 1.9.1 ifdefs we should find the comment and clean up the try/catch that is no longer necessary.
standard8, my recollection is you were going to do something w/ this bug at this point, no?
Whiteboard: [no l10n impact][needs review standard8] → [no l10n impact][needs something standard8]
Yep, I've added my suggested comments to the patch and checked it in: http://hg.mozilla.org/comm-central/rev/be58ebcea946 We should probably have a litmus test for something like this, as it is easy to miss if it does get broken. Eventually we may be able to pull it across into a mozmill test, but I'm not convinced we've got the necessary set up at the moment (e.g. newsgroups).
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 17 years ago
Flags: in-litmus?
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Whiteboard: [no l10n impact][needs something standard8] → [no l10n impact]
litmus test 9544 covers it
Flags: in-litmus? → in-litmus+
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Created:
Updated:
Size: