955358 - Don't show excessively long backlog when restoring from hold

Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX

(Instantbird Graveyard :: Conversation, enhancement)

Description

[aleth [:aleth]]

*** Original post on bio 1921 at 2013-04-06 14:54:00 UTC ***

*** Due to BzAPI limitations, the initial description is in comment 1 ***

Comment 1

[aleth [:aleth]]

Attachment: WIP

*** Original post on bio 1921 as attmnt 2328 at 2013-04-06 14:54:00 UTC ***

When opening a conversation from hold which contains a long backlog of messages, the user doesn't usually want to actually see the whole backlog. Displaying it takes a long time (bug 954618 (bio 1187)) and can cause issues with search (bug 954573 (bio 1140)) etc.

We discussed this feature request at http://log.bezut.info/instantbird/130405/#m319.

This patch will only display the last N messages in a conversation, where N is either 300 or given by the first unread ping. It adds a system message (that obviously needs to be improved) to inform the user that this has happened.

Comment 2

[aleth [:aleth]]

Comment on attachment 8354094 [details] [diff] [review]
WIP

*** Original change on bio 1921 attmnt 2328 at 2013-04-06 15:05:27 UTC was without comment, so any subsequent comment numbers will be shifted ***

Comment 3

[aleth [:aleth]]

*** Original post on bio 1921 at 2013-04-07 11:11:18 UTC ***

To be clear, the question is whether something like this is wanted as a stopgap before we have infinite scroll (as a way to show the dropped messages) or not. I'm not sure myself. The log viewer is not a perfect replacement for having the messages in the current conversation, as we lose a lot of metadata on the messages (and the corresponding actions).

Another possible variation would be to always show all the unread messages and just drop already read ones if there are more than N.

Comment 4

[Florian Quèze [:florian]]

*** Original post on bio 1921 at 2013-04-08 13:24:01 UTC ***

Not sure if aleth saw what I said on IRC at http://log.bezut.info/instantbird/130406#m245

Comment 5

[aleth [:aleth]]

Comment on attachment 8354094 [details] [diff] [review]
WIP

*** Original change on bio 1921 attmnt 2328 at 2013-04-10 14:57:30 UTC was without comment, so any subsequent comment numbers will be shifted ***

Comment 6

[Benedikt Pfeifer]

*** Original post on bio 1921 at 2013-12-28 10:14:40 UTC ***

Isn't this here a variation of bug 953744 (bio 301)?

Comment 7

[aleth [:aleth]]

Bug 1043902 will hopefully do much better than this :)