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 568441 - Object count of folders ignores hidden files regardless of "show hidden files"
Object count of folders ignores hidden files regardless of "show hidden files"
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 329879
Product: nautilus
Classification: Core
Component: Views: List View
2.24.x
Other All
: Normal minor
: ---
Assigned To: Nautilus Maintainers
Nautilus Maintainers
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2009-01-20 15:36 UTC by Jakob Unterwurzacher
Modified: 2009-01-22 10:15 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: 2.23/2.24

Attachments
Screenshot showing the problem (40.22 KB, image/png)
2009-01-20 15:38 UTC, Jakob Unterwurzacher 		Details

Description Jakob Unterwurzacher 2009-01-20 15:36:31 UTC 
Please describe the problem:
In the size column, for folders, the object count is displayed.
However, hidden files are not counted regardless of the "show hidden files" setting.
This can lead to stupid situations. In the attached screenshots, we see a folder with "0 objects" and at the same time see that it has two files in it.

Steps to reproduce:


Actual results:


Expected results:


Does this happen every time?


Other information:
Comment 1 Jakob Unterwurzacher 2009-01-20 15:38:51 UTC 
Created attachment 126840 [details]
Screenshot showing the problem
Comment 2 Cosimo Cecchi 2009-01-21 11:17:57 UTC 
Thanks for the bug report. This particular bug has already been reported into our bug tracking system, but please feel free to report any further bugs you find.


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 329879 ***
Comment 3 Jakob Unterwurzacher 2009-01-21 15:58:28 UTC 
Bug 329879 is about the properties dialog not counting hidden files, are you sure that this bug (which is about the list view) should be marked as a duplicate?
Comment 4 Cosimo Cecchi 2009-01-22 10:15:09 UTC 
The code should be the same anyway, that's the reason I marked this as a duplicate.