After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 342985 - Header pane display isn't properly repositioned after deleting articles
Header pane display isn't properly repositioned after deleting articles
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: Pan
Classification: Other
Component: general
pre-1.0 betas
Other Mac OS
: Normal normal
: 1.0
Assigned To: Charles Kerr
Pan QA Team
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2006-05-26 06:24 UTC by Jeff Berman
Modified: 2006-07-04 23:30 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Attachments
patch against 0.102 to fix this. (1.62 KB, patch)
2006-07-04 23:29 UTC, Charles Kerr
none Details | Review

Description Jeff Berman 2006-05-26 06:24:10 UTC
The header pane display isn't properly repositioned after deleting articles.  If you select a few pages of articles and delete them, pan .14.2.91 would correctly shift the display to show the articles subsequent to the deleted ones.  It's hard to describe in words what pan .98 does, but here goes.  If you have 900 header
rows loaded in, and you select and delete rows 400-500, the view now seems to stay positioned at row 500 instead of rolling back to the new row 400.  The upshot is that you now have to page up several pages to reach the deletion point.
Comment 1 Charles Kerr 2006-05-27 19:56:06 UTC
Fixed for 0.99.
Comment 2 Jeff Berman 2006-06-22 06:23:59 UTC
Hi, I'm afraid this still doesn't seem to work correctly.  It works when the first article in the selected block is on the screen.  However, if the display is positioned such that the last article in the selected block is displayed (the first article in the block being above the viewable range of articles) and then those articles are deleted, all articles are pushed up to fill the gap and the display is now positioned too far down the list.

Thank you,

Jeff
Comment 3 Charles Kerr 2006-07-04 23:29:00 UTC
Created attachment 68370 [details] [review]
patch against 0.102 to fix this.