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 535259 - Filters/rules: "Move" with subsequent actions doesn't work as expected
Filters/rules: "Move" with subsequent actions doesn't work as expected
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 620139
Product: evolution
Classification: Applications
Component: Mailer
2.22.x (obsolete)
Other All
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: evolution-mail-maintainers
Evolution QA team
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2008-05-28 14:06 UTC by rhi
Modified: 2012-02-27 10:38 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: 2.21/2.22



Description rhi 2008-05-28 14:06:16 UTC
Please describe the problem:
The "move" function of the filters/rules doesn't work as anyone would expect, but copies the message and deletes the original one BUT subsequent actions like marking the message as read operate on the orginal, deleted message, so they actually do nothing.

Steps to reproduce:
Create a new rule for certain / all messages with these actions:

1. Move message to folder XXX
2. Mark message as read

Actual results:
1. "Move message to folder XXX" copies the original message to folder XXX and deletes the original one
2. "Mark message as read" marks the deleted original message as read, so actually nothing happens


Expected results:
1. "Move message to folder XXX" moves the original message to folder XXX
2. "Mark message as read" marks the moved original message as read


Does this happen every time?
yes

Other information:
Additionally, the user is not informed about what "move" really does so there's no way to find out why these rules don't work except searching Bugzilla etc.

This bug is related to how Evolution handles the "move" operation internally, see bug #341777.
Comment 1 André Klapper 2012-02-27 10:38:24 UTC
Marking as dup of bug 620139 which is about the same problem.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 620139 ***