GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 327329
Folders created using other clients not listed under Evolution until restart
Last modified: 2013-09-13 00:49:15 UTC
I created a folder using GroupWise client and moved a few messages to it. In Evolution, this folder is not listed under IMAP, even after restarting Evoltuion. However, SOAP properly lists this folder, (getting the new folder in the next getFolderList call).
fixing summary typo
Well, it appears the second time you start up evo. The code is kinda lame here count = camel_store_summary_count((CamelStoreSummary *)imap_store->summary); for (i=0;i<count;i++) { si = camel_store_summary_index((CamelStoreSummary *)imap_store->summary, i); g_printf ("The actual path is %s\n", si->path); if (si == NULL) continue; if (imap_match_pattern(imap_store->dir_sep, pattern, camel_imap_store_info_full_name(imap_store->summary, si))) { if ((fi = g_hash_table_lookup(present, camel_store_info_path(imap_store->summary, si))) != NULL) { if (((fi->flags ^ si->flags) & CAMEL_STORE_INFO_FOLDER_SUBSCRIBED)) { si->flags = (si->flags & ~CAMEL_FOLDER_SUBSCRIBED) | (fi->flags & CAMEL_FOLDER_SUBSCRIBED); camel_store_summary_touch((CamelStoreSummary *)imap_store->summary); } } else { camel_store_summary_remove((CamelStoreSummary *)imap_store->summary, si); count--; i--; } } camel_store_summary_info_free((CamelStoreSummary *)imap_store->summary, si); } As you can see it looks for the cached folders in the LIST response but does not add new folders immediately. They get written at shutdown and the next startup the new folders are loaded. I need a efficient way to look up store whether a folder in LIST response is actually present in the cache. I am gonna dig into this today. Will solve a few other issues.
Confirming this bug, it would be great if this bug could be fixed for 2.8.
Hmmm... Not easy to fix. I did write up a fix but that never worked though, there is more to it than the code i pasted. Even if you throw a new_folder created signal it does not get picked up immediately.
I think this should become a duplicate of 330838, or vice versa.
As Josh mentioned, this looks like a duplicate of #330838. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 330838 ***