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 710504 - junk / expunge confusion ?
junk / expunge confusion ?
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 418520
Product: evolution
Classification: Applications
Component: Mailer
3.8.x (obsolete)
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: evolution-mail-maintainers
Evolution QA team
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2013-10-19 12:44 UTC by Michael Meeks
Modified: 2014-03-13 17:26 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Attachments
screenshot of the action :-) (402.77 KB, image/png)
2013-10-19 12:46 UTC, Michael Meeks
Details

Description Michael Meeks 2013-10-19 12:44:38 UTC
I guess the junk folder is (somehow) a view of the contents of other folders, such that you can't expunge there (or something). If I'm write - since expunge is disabled, we should prolly force on the 'hide deleted messages' otherwise it's a little confusing to people cleaning out their junk. cf. attached screenshot.

Thanks ! :-)
Comment 1 Michael Meeks 2013-10-19 12:46:28 UTC
Created attachment 257700 [details]
screenshot of the action :-)
Comment 2 Matthew Barnes 2013-10-19 14:31:49 UTC
Right, Junk is (at least by default) a virtual folder like Trash.

Just so I understand correctly, you were showing deleted messages in Junk and were confused why you couldn't expunge them directly from Junk?

I can see why that's confusing, although I'm not sure about forcing deleted messages to be hidden since that option + "Undelete" is the closest thing we have to an "undo" feature for accidental message deletions.  And you're probably more likely to get trigger-happy with the Delete key when sifting through junk.

Maybe we could make Folder -> Expunge actually expunge Inbox when viewing a virtual Junk folder?  Feels kinda hackish but not sure what else to suggest.
Comment 3 Milan Crha 2013-11-05 08:12:20 UTC
The expunge in Junk used to work in the past, but I disabled it during my changes in vFolders. I think I had some reason for it, which I cannot precisely recall. I'm adding this to my todo.
Comment 4 Matthew Barnes 2013-11-05 13:56:50 UTC
IIRC, we disabled vfolder expunging on grounds of principle of least surprise.

Expunging a vfolder actually expunges all the source folders feeding the vfolder, and as a result the user may permanently delete far more messages than what are shown as deleted in the vfolder.

Some users (for better or worse) actually make deleted messages part of their organization system.  So if they're not aware that vfolders operate this way, expunging a vfolder could be catastrophic.
Comment 5 Michael Meeks 2013-11-05 17:07:51 UTC
Sounds very sensible :-) however, it's not at all obvious to me that 'junk' is a vfolder, at least, it seems to be one that hides it's contents in the source folders too. Does it make sense to even show deleted items for that folder ?

Anyhow - prolly there's not 'right' answer here :-)
Comment 6 Matthew Barnes 2013-11-05 17:25:14 UTC
Right, that's more of a UI issue.  The virtual Junk and Trash folders have been perpetually confusing to users because they're mixed in with regular folders in the sidebar.  I've toyed with the idea of converting them to message list tabs with something like an info bar blurb explaining exactly what the heck you're seeing, but so far haven't actually attempted that.  (Tabs would be a nicer way to present folder search results as well.)
Comment 7 André Klapper 2013-12-15 11:52:28 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)
> Just so I understand correctly, you were showing deleted messages in Junk and
> were confused why you couldn't expunge them directly from Junk?

Covered in bug 684025
Comment 8 Milan Crha 2014-03-13 17:26:55 UTC
So this is an intended behaviour. I'm closing this as a duplicate of a bug report where the change was actually introduced (surprisingly not by me, as I mentioned above).

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 418520 ***