GNU bug report logs -
#37655
27.0.50; reversing `gnus-thread-sort-by-most-recent-date' does not work properly
Previous Next
Reported by: Hong Xu <hong <at> topbug.net>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2019 05:03:02 UTC
Severity: normal
Tags: notabug
Found in version 27.0.50
Done: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.
To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 37655 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 37655 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.
Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.
Report forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org:
bug#37655; Package
emacs.
(Tue, 08 Oct 2019 05:03:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Acknowledgement sent
to
Hong Xu <hong <at> topbug.net>:
New bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org.
(Tue, 08 Oct 2019 05:03:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Reversing `gnus-thread-sort-by-most-recent-date' does not seem to work properly.
To reproduce:
Download the test mbox file from here: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/mbox/bug-gnu-emacs/2000-10 and save it as 2000-10.mbox.
Start Emacs with "-Q", and evaluate the following:
;; Latest at bottom
(setq gnus-thread-sort-functions
'((not gnus-thread-sort-by-most-recent-date)))
(setq gnus-summary-line-format "%U%R%z %(%&user-date; %-15,15f %B %s%)\n")
`M-x gnus', followed by `G f /path/to/2000-10.mbox'. There is only one topic. Type `C-u Enter'.
The summary buffer is supposed to sort the messages in reversed most recent date order in each thread, but a lot of non-compliance can be observed. For instance:
Oct 02 2000 wm08894 <at> educ.cc > (no subject)
Oct 12 2000 fujyama yuu \->
Oct 05 2000 bigsuma <at> home.co Repost PLEASE HELP or reply!!! please :)
Oct 05 2000 Stefan Reichör Docstring for kill-line not complete
The ``(no subject)'' thread's latest mail is on Oct 12, but ``Docstring for kill-line not complete'' on Oct 05 is positioned after that.
In GNU Emacs 27.0.50 (build 5, x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 3.24.5)
of 2019-10-07 built on home
Repository revision: 32a67a5cfbfb92a9f76a5caf1c4b84beffcb1d9e
Repository branch: master
Windowing system distributor 'The X.Org Foundation', version 11.0.12004000
System Description: Debian GNU/Linux 10 (buster)
Configured using:
'configure --with-modules --with-xwidgets
--prefix=/home/hong/.local/opt/emacs/
'--program-transform-name=s/^ctags$/ctags.emacs/' --with-mailutils
'CFLAGS=-march=native -O3''
Configured features:
XPM JPEG TIFF GIF PNG SOUND DBUS GSETTINGS GLIB NOTIFY INOTIFY
LIBSELINUX GNUTLS LIBXML2 FREETYPE HARFBUZZ XFT ZLIB TOOLKIT_SCROLL_BARS
GTK3 X11 XDBE XIM MODULES THREADS XWIDGETS PDUMPER GMP
Important settings:
value of $LANG: en_US.UTF-8
value of $XMODIFIERS: @im=fcitx
locale-coding-system: utf-8-unix
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org:
bug#37655; Package
emacs.
(Wed, 09 Oct 2019 18:56:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #8 received at 37655 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Hong Xu <hong <at> topbug.net> writes:
> Reversing `gnus-thread-sort-by-most-recent-date' does not seem to work properly.
>
> To reproduce:
>
> Download the test mbox file from here: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/mbox/bug-gnu-emacs/2000-10 and save it as 2000-10.mbox.
>
> Start Emacs with "-Q", and evaluate the following:
>
> ;; Latest at bottom
> (setq gnus-thread-sort-functions
> '((not gnus-thread-sort-by-most-recent-date)))
>
> (setq gnus-summary-line-format "%U%R%z %(%&user-date; %-15,15f %B %s%)\n")
>
> `M-x gnus', followed by `G f /path/to/2000-10.mbox'. There is only one topic. Type `C-u Enter'.
>
> The summary buffer is supposed to sort the messages in reversed most recent date order in each thread, but a lot of non-compliance can be observed. For instance:
>
> Oct 02 2000 wm08894 <at> educ.cc > (no subject)
> Oct 12 2000 fujyama yuu \->
> Oct 05 2000 bigsuma <at> home.co Repost PLEASE HELP or reply!!! please :)
> Oct 05 2000 Stefan Reichör Docstring for kill-line not complete
>
>
> The ``(no subject)'' thread's latest mail is on Oct 12, but ``Docstring for kill-line not complete'' on Oct 05 is positioned after that.
I can reproduce this, but oddly it only seems to have gone wrong for
that one thread -- all the other threads in the mailbox seem to be
sorted correctly. I also note that the Summary buffer displays the date
of both messages in the thread as one day earlier than the Date header
in the message itself. So I wonder if there's just something weird about
one or both of the messages that's causing Gnus to handle the date
incorrectly.
When I have a bit more time I'll try to figure out what date Gnus is
trying to use for that thread.
Eric
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org:
bug#37655; Package
emacs.
(Wed, 09 Oct 2019 20:45:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #11 received at 37655 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
On 10/9/19 11:55 AM, Eric Abrahamsen wrote:
>
> I can reproduce this, but oddly it only seems to have gone wrong for
> that one thread -- all the other threads in the mailbox seem to be
> sorted correctly. I also note that the Summary buffer displays the date
> of both messages in the thread as one day earlier than the Date header
> in the message itself. So I wonder if there's just something weird about
> one or both of the messages that's causing Gnus to handle the date
> incorrectly.
>
> When I have a bit more time I'll try to figure out what date Gnus is
> trying to use for that thread.
>
On my personal messages, there is also only exactly one thread placed in the wrong position. My guess is that there may be something on the boundary not handled properly during sorting ...
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org:
bug#37655; Package
emacs.
(Wed, 09 Oct 2019 21:05:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #14 received at 37655 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Hong Xu <hong <at> topbug.net> writes:
> On 10/9/19 11:55 AM, Eric Abrahamsen wrote:
>> I can reproduce this, but oddly it only seems to have gone wrong for
>> that one thread -- all the other threads in the mailbox seem to be
>> sorted correctly. I also note that the Summary buffer displays the date
>> of both messages in the thread as one day earlier than the Date header
>> in the message itself. So I wonder if there's just something weird about
>> one or both of the messages that's causing Gnus to handle the date
>> incorrectly.
>> When I have a bit more time I'll try to figure out what date Gnus is
>> trying to use for that thread.
>>
>
> On my personal messages, there is also only exactly one thread placed
> in the wrong position. My guess is that there may be something on the
> boundary not handled properly during sorting ...
Ah, I guess that would make sense. Are the dates also displayed
incorrectly in the Summary format line for the messages in that thread?
Eric
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org:
bug#37655; Package
emacs.
(Wed, 09 Oct 2019 21:09:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #17 received at 37655 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
On 10/9/19 2:04 PM, Eric Abrahamsen wrote:
> Hong Xu <hong <at> topbug.net> writes:
>
>> On 10/9/19 11:55 AM, Eric Abrahamsen wrote:
>>> I can reproduce this, but oddly it only seems to have gone wrong for
>>> that one thread -- all the other threads in the mailbox seem to be
>>> sorted correctly. I also note that the Summary buffer displays the date
>>> of both messages in the thread as one day earlier than the Date header
>>> in the message itself. So I wonder if there's just something weird about
>>> one or both of the messages that's causing Gnus to handle the date
>>> incorrectly.
>>> When I have a bit more time I'll try to figure out what date Gnus is
>>> trying to use for that thread.
>>>
>>
>> On my personal messages, there is also only exactly one thread placed
>> in the wrong position. My guess is that there may be something on the
>> boundary not handled properly during sorting ...
>
> Ah, I guess that would make sense. Are the dates also displayed
> incorrectly in the Summary format line for the messages in that thread?
>
I don't observe incorrect date. Is there an incorrect date in the example above?
I also observed that `gnus-thread-latest-date' does not return correct dates for some messages, although they displayed as in one thread.
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org:
bug#37655; Package
emacs.
(Wed, 09 Oct 2019 21:33:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #20 received at 37655 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
On 10/09/19 14:08 PM, Hong Xu wrote:
> On 10/9/19 2:04 PM, Eric Abrahamsen wrote:
>> Hong Xu <hong <at> topbug.net> writes:
>>
>>> On 10/9/19 11:55 AM, Eric Abrahamsen wrote:
>>>> I can reproduce this, but oddly it only seems to have gone wrong for
>>>> that one thread -- all the other threads in the mailbox seem to be
>>>> sorted correctly. I also note that the Summary buffer displays the date
>>>> of both messages in the thread as one day earlier than the Date header
>>>> in the message itself. So I wonder if there's just something weird about
>>>> one or both of the messages that's causing Gnus to handle the date
>>>> incorrectly.
>>>> When I have a bit more time I'll try to figure out what date Gnus is
>>>> trying to use for that thread.
>>>>
>>>
>>> On my personal messages, there is also only exactly one thread placed
>>> in the wrong position. My guess is that there may be something on the
>>> boundary not handled properly during sorting ...
>> Ah, I guess that would make sense. Are the dates also displayed
>> incorrectly in the Summary format line for the messages in that thread?
>>
>
> I don't observe incorrect date. Is there an incorrect date in the example above?
Yes, the dates as displayed in the Summary format line are off from the
dates in the Date header of the article itself. At least, that's what
I'm seeing in the Emacs -Q test.
In your personal messages, is it also the first thread in the Summary
buffer that's sorted incorrectly? That would definitely indicate some
sort of error in the start/end of looping.
> I also observed that `gnus-thread-latest-date' does not return correct
> dates for some messages, although they displayed as in one thread.
Okay, noted. I'll probably have time to look deeper tomorrow.
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org:
bug#37655; Package
emacs.
(Wed, 09 Oct 2019 22:52:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #23 received at 37655 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
On 10/9/19 2:32 PM, Eric Abrahamsen wrote:
>>
>> I don't observe incorrect date. Is there an incorrect date in the example above?
>
> Yes, the dates as displayed in the Summary format line are off from the
> dates in the Date header of the article itself. At least, that's what
> I'm seeing in the Emacs -Q test.
>
> In your personal messages, is it also the first thread in the Summary
> buffer that's sorted incorrectly? That would definitely indicate some
> sort of error in the start/end of looping.
>
The date of the message is correct for my personal message. The example mbox file actually also shows the correct date (as posted in the original report), because the article at issue was dated Fri, 13 Oct 2000 10:15:42 +0900 in the mbox file, and I am on GMT-7, therefore 12 Oct 2000 was the correct date for me.
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org:
bug#37655; Package
emacs.
(Fri, 18 Oct 2019 04:47:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #26 received at 37655 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
On 10/09/19 15:51 PM, Hong Xu wrote:
> On 10/9/19 2:32 PM, Eric Abrahamsen wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't observe incorrect date. Is there an incorrect date in the example above?
>> Yes, the dates as displayed in the Summary format line are off from
>> the
>> dates in the Date header of the article itself. At least, that's what
>> I'm seeing in the Emacs -Q test.
>> In your personal messages, is it also the first thread in the
>> Summary
>> buffer that's sorted incorrectly? That would definitely indicate some
>> sort of error in the start/end of looping.
>>
>
> The date of the message is correct for my personal message. The
> example mbox file actually also shows the correct date (as posted in
> the original report), because the article at issue was dated Fri, 13
> Oct 2000 10:15:42 +0900 in the mbox file, and I am on GMT-7, therefore
> 12 Oct 2000 was the correct date for me.
Right, sorry, I wasn't thinking clearly.
Unfortunately I haven't been able to make any process on this. Threading
is so complicated I can't even get a little test case going in the
*scratch* buffer to see what's happening. I'm going to have to bow out
of this one...
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org:
bug#37655; Package
emacs.
(Mon, 28 Oct 2019 15:06:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #29 received at 37655 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Hong Xu <hong <at> topbug.net> writes:
> Start Emacs with "-Q", and evaluate the following:
>
> ;; Latest at bottom
> (setq gnus-thread-sort-functions
> '((not gnus-thread-sort-by-most-recent-date)))
>
> (setq gnus-summary-line-format "%U%R%z %(%&user-date; %-15,15f %B %s%)\n")
>
> `M-x gnus', followed by `G f /path/to/2000-10.mbox'. There is only one topic. Type `C-u Enter'.
>
> The summary buffer is supposed to sort the messages in reversed most recent date order in each thread, but a lot of non-compliance can be observed. For instance:
>
> Oct 02 2000 wm08894 <at> educ.cc > (no subject)
> Oct 12 2000 fujyama yuu \->
> Oct 05 2000 bigsuma <at> home.co Repost PLEASE HELP or reply!!! please :)
> Oct 05 2000 Stefan Reichör Docstring for kill-line not complete
With the formatting you've chosen, you can't see any difference between
real threads and gathered threads. gnus-thread-sort-functions is about
how real threads are sorted. After sorting, if you have thread
gathering switched on, articles with the same subject (in the example
mail box "(no subject")) are displayed after one another, but that
doesn't affect the sorting.
So this isn't a bug, and this works as designed.
--
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no
Added tag(s) notabug.
Request was from
Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
to
control <at> debbugs.gnu.org.
(Mon, 28 Oct 2019 15:06:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
bug closed, send any further explanations to
37655 <at> debbugs.gnu.org and Hong Xu <hong <at> topbug.net>
Request was from
Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
to
control <at> debbugs.gnu.org.
(Mon, 28 Oct 2019 15:06:03 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
bug archived.
Request was from
Debbugs Internal Request <help-debbugs <at> gnu.org>
to
internal_control <at> debbugs.gnu.org.
(Tue, 26 Nov 2019 12:24:06 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
This bug report was last modified 4 years and 145 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.