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 594444 - Appointments/Meetings of 0 minutes length do not show in the calendar.
Appointments/Meetings of 0 minutes length do not show in the calendar.
Status: RESOLVED NOTABUG
Product: evolution
Classification: Applications
Component: Calendar
2.26.x (obsolete)
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: evolution-calendar-maintainers
Evolution QA team
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2009-09-07 23:37 UTC by Nick Jenkins
Modified: 2009-11-30 11:00 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---



Description Nick Jenkins 2009-09-07 23:37:10 UTC
Steps to reproduce:
* Switch to the calendar.
* Switch to month view (seems to happen in other views too, but I mostly tend to use this view)
* Right-click on a day.
* Select "new meeting" or "new appointment".
* Enter a summary.
* Set the end to time to be "for" a duration of 0 hours and 0 minutes.
* Click save.
* Observe the appointment/meeting does not appear in the calendar - basically, it disappears from the Calendar GUI.
* However, if you grep the ~/.evolution/calendar folder for the summary/name of the meeting/appointment, the entry has been recorded in the data files - it's just not displaying.

What should happen:
* An item should appear in the calendar, even if it has zero minutes duration. Personally I use a zero length entry for events and deadlines that I need to be aware of, but do not need to physically attend.

Other info:
* Evo version is 2.26.1.
* Calendar is local.
* As far as I can recall, this used to work in previous versions (Evo 2.22 and 2.24)
* The added calendar entry displays fine if duration is > 0 minutes.
Comment 1 Milan Crha 2009-11-27 12:01:07 UTC
I just tried this and it is working fine with actual master (just before 2.29.3). It works fine with 2.28.1 too. I guess it's something else. Please reopen if you'll encounter this in the 2.28.1+. Thanks.
Comment 2 Nick Jenkins 2009-11-29 23:07:46 UTC
Sorry, now I can't reproduce it in 2.26.1 either. Very weird, I just tried it several times and it worked fine, but I'm certain it didn't work before when I reported it. Most strange, I can't explain it: maybe there were some distro updates that fixed this, or it was a temporary problem on my system, or something else? Anyway, my sincere apologies for this, and definitely agree with closing as "NOTABUG".
Comment 3 Milan Crha 2009-11-30 11:00:15 UTC
No problem at all, when/if you'll see it again, just reopen this bug and we can investigate what is causing the issue.