GNU bug report logs - #34974
27.0.50; Moving article error with duplicate suppression disabled

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 34974 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 34974 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: "Basil L. Contovounesios" <contovob <at> tcd.ie>
To: submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: 27.0.50; Moving article error with duplicate suppression disabled
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2019 14:07:31 +0000

With gnus-suppress-duplicates left at its default value of nil, trying
to move an article with 'B m <group>' gives me the following backtrace:

Debugger entered--Lisp error: (wrong-type-argument hash-table-p nil)
  remhash("<redacted-message-id>" nil)
  gnus-dup-unsuppress-article(1988)
  gnus-summary-move-article(nil)
  funcall-interactively(gnus-summary-move-article nil)
  call-interactively(gnus-summary-move-article nil nil)
  command-execute(gnus-summary-move-article)

I'm no expert, and I haven't tried reproducing this with a minimal
config, but I think gnus-summary-move-article should not call
gnus-dup-unsuppress-article when gnus-suppress-duplicates is nil, right?

This issue seems to have been uncovered by the switch to hash-tables in
bug#33653.  Previously, gnus-dup-unsuppress-article called unintern,
which would not complain when its second argument gnus-dup-hashtb was
nil, even though it probably should have.

Patch to follow.

Thanks,

-- 
Basil

Gnus v5.13
In GNU Emacs 27.0.50 (build 1, x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, X toolkit, Xaw3d scroll bars)
 of 2019-03-24 built on thunk
Repository revision: dbd6490ad49b0f088d56cdd5f04178bdd62c806a
Repository branch: master
Windowing system distributor 'The X.Org Foundation', version 11.0.12003000
System Description: Debian GNU/Linux buster/sid

Message #8 received at 34974 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: "Basil L. Contovounesios" <contovob <at> tcd.ie>
To: 34974 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: Eric Abrahamsen <eric <at> ericabrahamsen.net>,
 Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Subject: Re: bug#34974: 27.0.50;
 Moving article error with duplicate suppression disabled
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2019 14:59:55 +0000

"Basil L. Contovounesios" <contovob <at> tcd.ie> writes:

> With gnus-suppress-duplicates left at its default value of nil, trying
> to move an article with 'B m <group>' gives me the following backtrace:
>
> Debugger entered--Lisp error: (wrong-type-argument hash-table-p nil)
>   remhash("<redacted-message-id>" nil)
>   gnus-dup-unsuppress-article(1988)
>   gnus-summary-move-article(nil)
>   funcall-interactively(gnus-summary-move-article nil)
>   call-interactively(gnus-summary-move-article nil nil)
>   command-execute(gnus-summary-move-article)
>
> I'm no expert, and I haven't tried reproducing this with a minimal
> config, but I think gnus-summary-move-article should not call
> gnus-dup-unsuppress-article when gnus-suppress-duplicates is nil, right?
>
> This issue seems to have been uncovered by the switch to hash-tables in
> bug#33653.  Previously, gnus-dup-unsuppress-article called unintern,
> which would not complain when its second argument gnus-dup-hashtb was
> nil, even though it probably should have.
>
> Patch to follow.

Sorry, this is a duplicate of bug#34973, which was reported first and
where I've now sent my suggested patch.

I was going to merge the two bug reports, but then I read that the
debbugs 'merge' command requires reports to be assigned to the same
package.

This report was created by the gnus-bug command, which assigned it to
both packages emacs and gnus and version 5.13, whereas the other report
was presumably created by report-emacs-bug and assigned to the emacs
package, version 27.0.50.

So, which package+version combination should Gnus bugs be assigned to?
How should these two reports be merged?  Does merging keep all parties
CCed, or do they have to be CCed anew?

Thanks,

-- 
Basil

Message #11 received at 34974 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eric Abrahamsen <eric <at> ericabrahamsen.net>
To: "Basil L. Contovounesios" <contovob <at> tcd.ie>
Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>, 34974 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#34974: 27.0.50;
 Moving article error with duplicate suppression disabled
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2019 08:05:14 -0700

"Basil L. Contovounesios" <contovob <at> tcd.ie> writes:

> With gnus-suppress-duplicates left at its default value of nil, trying
> to move an article with 'B m <group>' gives me the following backtrace:
>
> Debugger entered--Lisp error: (wrong-type-argument hash-table-p nil)
>   remhash("<redacted-message-id>" nil)
>   gnus-dup-unsuppress-article(1988)
>   gnus-summary-move-article(nil)
>   funcall-interactively(gnus-summary-move-article nil)
>   call-interactively(gnus-summary-move-article nil nil)
>   command-execute(gnus-summary-move-article)
>
> I'm no expert, and I haven't tried reproducing this with a minimal
> config, but I think gnus-summary-move-article should not call
> gnus-dup-unsuppress-article when gnus-suppress-duplicates is nil, right?
>
> This issue seems to have been uncovered by the switch to hash-tables in
> bug#33653.  Previously, gnus-dup-unsuppress-article called unintern,
> which would not complain when its second argument gnus-dup-hashtb was
> nil, even though it probably should have.
>
> Patch to follow.

Thanks, Basil!

It looks like the only other call to `gnus-dup-unsuppress-articles' is
wrapped in a check for `gnus-suppress-duplicates' -- I suppose it would
be enough just to wrap this one as well?

Eric

Message #14 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eric Abrahamsen <eric <at> ericabrahamsen.net>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#34974: 27.0.50;
 Moving article error with duplicate suppression disabled
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2019 08:06:36 -0700

"Basil L. Contovounesios" <contovob <at> tcd.ie> writes:

> "Basil L. Contovounesios" <contovob <at> tcd.ie> writes:
>
>> With gnus-suppress-duplicates left at its default value of nil, trying
>> to move an article with 'B m <group>' gives me the following backtrace:
>>
>> Debugger entered--Lisp error: (wrong-type-argument hash-table-p nil)
>>   remhash("<redacted-message-id>" nil)
>>   gnus-dup-unsuppress-article(1988)
>>   gnus-summary-move-article(nil)
>>   funcall-interactively(gnus-summary-move-article nil)
>>   call-interactively(gnus-summary-move-article nil nil)
>>   command-execute(gnus-summary-move-article)
>>
>> I'm no expert, and I haven't tried reproducing this with a minimal
>> config, but I think gnus-summary-move-article should not call
>> gnus-dup-unsuppress-article when gnus-suppress-duplicates is nil, right?
>>
>> This issue seems to have been uncovered by the switch to hash-tables in
>> bug#33653.  Previously, gnus-dup-unsuppress-article called unintern,
>> which would not complain when its second argument gnus-dup-hashtb was
>> nil, even though it probably should have.
>>
>> Patch to follow.
>
> Sorry, this is a duplicate of bug#34973, which was reported first and
> where I've now sent my suggested patch.
>
> I was going to merge the two bug reports, but then I read that the
> debbugs 'merge' command requires reports to be assigned to the same
> package.

Bah, and I'd sent in the "merge" command moments before. Trying too hard
to be helpful.

> This report was created by the gnus-bug command, which assigned it to
> both packages emacs and gnus and version 5.13, whereas the other report
> was presumably created by report-emacs-bug and assigned to the emacs
> package, version 27.0.50.
>
> So, which package+version combination should Gnus bugs be assigned to?
> How should these two reports be merged?  Does merging keep all parties
> CCed, or do they have to be CCed anew?
>
> Thanks,

Message #19 received at 34974 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: "Basil L. Contovounesios" <contovob <at> tcd.ie>
To: Eric Abrahamsen <eric <at> ericabrahamsen.net>
Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>, 34974 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#34974: 27.0.50;
 Moving article error with duplicate suppression disabled
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2019 17:08:16 +0000

Eric Abrahamsen <eric <at> ericabrahamsen.net> writes:

> "Basil L. Contovounesios" <contovob <at> tcd.ie> writes:
>
>> With gnus-suppress-duplicates left at its default value of nil, trying
>> to move an article with 'B m <group>' gives me the following backtrace:
>>
>> Debugger entered--Lisp error: (wrong-type-argument hash-table-p nil)
>>   remhash("<redacted-message-id>" nil)
>>   gnus-dup-unsuppress-article(1988)
>>   gnus-summary-move-article(nil)
>>   funcall-interactively(gnus-summary-move-article nil)
>>   call-interactively(gnus-summary-move-article nil nil)
>>   command-execute(gnus-summary-move-article)
>>
>> I'm no expert, and I haven't tried reproducing this with a minimal
>> config, but I think gnus-summary-move-article should not call
>> gnus-dup-unsuppress-article when gnus-suppress-duplicates is nil, right?
>>
>> This issue seems to have been uncovered by the switch to hash-tables in
>> bug#33653.  Previously, gnus-dup-unsuppress-article called unintern,
>> which would not complain when its second argument gnus-dup-hashtb was
>> nil, even though it probably should have.
>>
>> Patch to follow.
>
> It looks like the only other call to `gnus-dup-unsuppress-articles' is
> wrapped in a check for `gnus-suppress-duplicates' -- I suppose it would
> be enough just to wrap this one as well?

That is what the proposed patch[1] does.  Is it okay to push this to
master?

[1]: https://debbugs.gnu.org/34973#8

As I mention there, though, I'm not sure such a guard is sufficient in
the case that gnus-suppress-duplicates is enabled at a later stage, but
I will investigate and report this as a separate bug if needed.

Thanks,

-- 
Basil

Message #22 received at 34974 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eric Abrahamsen <eric <at> ericabrahamsen.net>
To: "Basil L. Contovounesios" <contovob <at> tcd.ie>
Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>, 34974 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#34974: 27.0.50;
 Moving article error with duplicate suppression disabled
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2019 10:14:02 -0700

On 03/24/19 17:08 PM, Basil L. Contovounesios wrote:
> Eric Abrahamsen <eric <at> ericabrahamsen.net> writes:
>
>> "Basil L. Contovounesios" <contovob <at> tcd.ie> writes:
>>
>>> With gnus-suppress-duplicates left at its default value of nil, trying
>>> to move an article with 'B m <group>' gives me the following backtrace:
>>>
>>> Debugger entered--Lisp error: (wrong-type-argument hash-table-p nil)
>>>   remhash("<redacted-message-id>" nil)
>>>   gnus-dup-unsuppress-article(1988)
>>>   gnus-summary-move-article(nil)
>>>   funcall-interactively(gnus-summary-move-article nil)
>>>   call-interactively(gnus-summary-move-article nil nil)
>>>   command-execute(gnus-summary-move-article)
>>>
>>> I'm no expert, and I haven't tried reproducing this with a minimal
>>> config, but I think gnus-summary-move-article should not call
>>> gnus-dup-unsuppress-article when gnus-suppress-duplicates is nil, right?
>>>
>>> This issue seems to have been uncovered by the switch to hash-tables in
>>> bug#33653.  Previously, gnus-dup-unsuppress-article called unintern,
>>> which would not complain when its second argument gnus-dup-hashtb was
>>> nil, even though it probably should have.
>>>
>>> Patch to follow.
>>
>> It looks like the only other call to `gnus-dup-unsuppress-articles' is
>> wrapped in a check for `gnus-suppress-duplicates' -- I suppose it would
>> be enough just to wrap this one as well?
>
> That is what the proposed patch[1] does.  Is it okay to push this to
> master?
>
> [1]: https://debbugs.gnu.org/34973#8

Already done! Our messages keep passing each other...

Message #25 received at 34974 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: "Basil L. Contovounesios" <contovob <at> tcd.ie>
To: Eric Abrahamsen <eric <at> ericabrahamsen.net>
Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>, 34974 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#34974: 27.0.50;
 Moving article error with duplicate suppression disabled
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 04:16:08 +0000

Eric Abrahamsen <eric <at> ericabrahamsen.net> writes:

> On 03/24/19 17:08 PM, Basil L. Contovounesios wrote:
>> Eric Abrahamsen <eric <at> ericabrahamsen.net> writes:
>>
>>> It looks like the only other call to `gnus-dup-unsuppress-articles' is
>>> wrapped in a check for `gnus-suppress-duplicates' -- I suppose it would
>>> be enough just to wrap this one as well?
>>
>> That is what the proposed patch[1] does.  Is it okay to push this to
>> master?
>>
>> [1]: https://debbugs.gnu.org/34973#8
>
> Already done! Our messages keep passing each other...

Thanks for looking into this so quickly and working on Gnus in general!
And good luck with the rest of the fallout. ;)

-- 
Basil

Message #32 received at 34974-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: "Basil L. Contovounesios" <contovob <at> tcd.ie>
To: Eric Abrahamsen <eric <at> ericabrahamsen.net>
Cc: 34974-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#34974: 27.0.50;
 Moving article error with duplicate suppression disabled
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 14:40:15 +0100

tags 34974 fixed
close 34974
quit

Eric Abrahamsen <eric <at> ericabrahamsen.net> writes:

> "Basil L. Contovounesios" <contovob <at> tcd.ie> writes:
>
>> Sorry, this is a duplicate of bug#34973, which was reported first and
>> where I've now sent my suggested patch.
>>
>> I was going to merge the two bug reports, but then I read that the
>> debbugs 'merge' command requires reports to be assigned to the same
>> package.
>
> Bah, and I'd sent in the "merge" command moments before. Trying too hard
> to be helpful.
>
>> This report was created by the gnus-bug command, which assigned it to
>> both packages emacs and gnus and version 5.13, whereas the other report
>> was presumably created by report-emacs-bug and assigned to the emacs
>> package, version 27.0.50.
>>
>> So, which package+version combination should Gnus bugs be assigned to?
>> How should these two reports be merged?  Does merging keep all parties
>> CCed, or do they have to be CCed anew?

I see that Glenn reassigned bug#34973 to both packages emacs and gnus
before merging these two reports, thanks Glenn!

The suggested fix has been merged[1][2], so I'm closing this report.

[1]: https://debbugs.gnu.org/34973#22
[2]: https://debbugs.gnu.org/34974#22

Thanks,

-- 
Basil

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.