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 620628 - Checkbox in vfolder deletion prompt is saved backwards
Checkbox in vfolder deletion prompt is saved backwards
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: evolution
Classification: Applications
Component: Mailer
2.30.x (obsolete)
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: evolution-mail-maintainers
Evolution QA team
: 615782 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2010-06-05 05:57 UTC by Wolfgang Karall
Modified: 2010-06-13 23:02 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Description Wolfgang Karall 2010-06-05 05:57:07 UTC 
Hello,

after upgrading from 2.28.x to 2.30.1.2, when I try to delete from a search folder I get a pop-up again that I probably got long time ago, telling me

----
Delete messages in Search Folder "Unread"?

Warning: Deleting messages from a Search Folder will delete the actual message from one of your local or remote folders.
Do you really want to do this?
----

and has the usual "Do not ask me again" checkbox.

Unfortunately this checkbox is not working, so for every mail I delete from a search folder I get this pop-up which is rather unpleasant.

Kind regards
Wolfgang Karall
Comment 1 Matthew Barnes 2010-06-05 17:04:32 UTC 
The checkbox state was being saved backwards.  If you leave the checkbox empty it should stop asking.

I also noticed we only save the checkbox state if you click Delete, but really it should be saved for either action.  Only if the dialog is closed via the window manager control should it not be saved.

Fixed on master and gnome-2-30 branches:

http://git.gnome.org/browse/evolution/commit/?id=b3cdfb6bad5cad0932b02fa049da0fcab66a9603

http://git.gnome.org/browse/evolution/commit/?h=gnome-2-30&id=f11f7d7571628be4904cdfa947ca884170c81a96
Comment 2 Matthew Barnes 2010-06-13 23:02:26 UTC 
*** Bug 615782 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***