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 412083 - Don't default new folder name to one that's already taken
Don't default new folder name to one that's already taken
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 171416
Product: gtk+
Classification: Platform
Component: Widget: GtkFileChooser
unspecified
Other Linux
: Normal minor
: ---
Assigned To: gtk-bugs
Federico Mena Quintero
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2007-02-26 00:10 UTC by Matthew Paul Thomas (mpt)
Modified: 2009-02-27 20:21 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: 2.15/2.16



Description Matthew Paul Thomas (mpt) 2007-02-26 00:10:25 UTC
Ubuntu 6.10

1.  In a Save dialog, click "Create Folder", and press Enter.
2.  Go back to the original folder.
3.  Click "Create Folder" again.
    -   What you see: "Type name of new folder".
    -   What you should see: "Type name of new folder 2". Or, since that wouldn't
        make sense, "untitled folder 2", where the default name of the previous
        folder was "untitled folder" (consistent with Nautilus).
4.  Press Enter.
    -   What happens: "The folder could not be created - error accessing
        'file:///this/is/ugly/Type%20name%20of%20new%20folder': File exists"
    -   What should happen: The name should not be accepted and editing should
        continue.
Comment 1 gg 2008-10-25 21:31:50 UTC
Yes I think actually putting "Type name of new folder" is treating the user as an idiot. He has just performed an action to create a new folder , it's pretty obvious he has to name it. 

If he choses not to , "untitled" is a lot more sensible that the current messy filename.

Comment 2 Milan Bouchet-Valat 2009-02-27 11:22:44 UTC
This bug is a kind duplicate of bug 129643. If the folder was not created when the text has not been changed or is empty, the present problem would not appear at all. There are patches available there.
Comment 3 Federico Mena Quintero 2009-02-27 20:21:41 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 171416 ***