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 352337 - Scroll bar at the end of headers list.
Scroll bar at the end of headers list.
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: Pan
Classification: Other
Component: general
pre-1.0 betas
Other Mac OS
: Normal minor
: 1.0
Assigned To: Charles Kerr
Pan QA Team
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2006-08-22 04:46 UTC by devchan1
Modified: 2006-09-03 20:10 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Attachments
0.110 patch (279 bytes, patch)
2006-08-30 04:57 UTC, Charles Kerr
none Details | Review

Description devchan1 2006-08-22 04:46:04 UTC
Open a group, scroll all the way to the bottom of the group.
Next open another group.

The scroll bar will be at the bottom end of the headers' list. It should not be, it should be at the top of the headers list.
Comment 1 Duncan 2006-08-29 09:16:17 UTC
List discussion in this thread:
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnome.apps.pan.user/7112

As described there and confirmed here, go to the bottom of the first group, switch to the second, the problem occurs (you start at the bottom of the second group rather than the expected top).  Switch to a third, the problem no longer occurs (you start at the top of the group again).

It's not a crasher, but it's irritating, in part because the behavior isn't consistent.  Expected would be to always start at the top of a new group (or remember where one was in it, but pan isn't doing that yet), like it does with the first group and with the third.  However, always starting at a similar location in the new group as one was at in the last group would at least be consistent, where now it starts at the top sometimes and elsewhere sometimes, or at least for the second group browsed.

The behavior has been confirmed thru 0.110 and as early as 0.107, tho it may have been that way since initial 0.90 release.

As the severity is minor, no crash or loss of primary functionality, only failure of application behavioral expectation thus generating temporary minor disorientation/confusion, I'd not consider this a 1.0 blocker, but it would of course be nice to have it fixed by 1.0 if it's not too hard to trace and correct.

Duncan
Comment 2 Charles Kerr 2006-08-30 04:57:44 UTC
Created attachment 71881 [details] [review]
0.110 patch