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 662991 - gconf hits assert when database sources are reloaded
gconf hits assert when database sources are reloaded
Product: GConf
Classification: Deprecated
Component: gconf
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: GConf Maintainers
GConf Maintainers
Depends on:
Reported: 2011-10-29 12:30 UTC by Marc Deslauriers
Modified: 2011-10-31 15:37 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---

Revert d7917514549f48297bc0032a7e2b54bfb17f7495 and clarify comment (1.19 KB, patch)
2011-10-31 15:00 UTC, Vincent Untz
none Details | Review

Description Marc Deslauriers 2011-10-29 12:30:21 UTC
This is seen with 3.2.2. When the database sources are reloaded, this happens:

 g_assertion_message (domain=0x805002b "GConf", file=0x804f733 "gconf-database.c", line=806, func=0x804f8a0 "gconf_database_set_sources", message=<optimized out>) at /build/buildd/glib2.0-2.30.0/./glib/gtestutils.c:1425
 gconf_database_set_sources (db=0x86e4768, sources=0x8798cb8) at gconf-database.c:806
 reload_databases () at gconfd.c:1346
 periodic_cleanup_timeout (data=0x0) at gconfd.c:1050
 g_timeout_dispatch (source=0x86e84f0, callback=0x804d060 <periodic_cleanup_timeout>, user_data=0x0) at /build/buildd/glib2.0-2.30.0/./glib/gmain.c:3907

See downstream bug report:

Seems to be caused by this commit:

Why is there an assert there?
Comment 1 Ross Burton 2011-10-31 14:20:51 UTC
Awwww damnit.
Comment 2 Ross Burton 2011-10-31 14:41:38 UTC
Vincent, the comments and code in your original patch is confusing me, as is evident by the the fact that my "fix" broke it.  Can you have a look at this please?
Comment 3 Vincent Untz 2011-10-31 14:57:38 UTC
Yeah, I think it's just the opposite: the comment was wrong and the code was right. This code should not be reached with corba.
Comment 4 Vincent Untz 2011-10-31 15:00:25 UTC
Created attachment 200339 [details] [review]
Revert d7917514549f48297bc0032a7e2b54bfb17f7495 and clarify comment

Actually, the comment was okay-ish, except that it was ambiguous/unclear. Here's a patch to revert the earlier change and that clarifies the comment.
Comment 5 Ross Burton 2011-10-31 15:37:27 UTC
Committed to git, thanks Vicent!