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 700013 - Loose track of selected msg on folder refresh
Loose track of selected msg on folder refresh
Status: RESOLVED INCOMPLETE
Product: evolution
Classification: Applications
Component: Shell
3.8.x (obsolete)
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: Evolution Shell Maintainers Team
Evolution QA team
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2013-05-09 13:14 UTC by Jiří Koten
Modified: 2019-11-12 16:56 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Description Jiří Koten 2013-05-09 13:14:04 UTC 
When I'm reading some old msg, e.g. it's located in the middle of the msgs list and evo refresh the folder, the msgs list scroll to the bottom of the list. Then I have to scroll up again to find my selected msg.

Evo shoudn't scroll the msgs list on its own, selected msg shoud be always visible in the msgs list.

I'm using "Group by Threads" and sort by Date (Ascending).

evolution-3.8.1-1+git20130507.fc19.x86_64
Comment 1 Matthew Barnes 2013-05-09 13:51:44 UTC 
Duplicate of bug 699603?

I did some investigation there and found it to be specific to GNOME Shell (and Cinnamon by proxy).
Comment 2 Jiří Koten 2013-05-09 15:04:03 UTC 
(In reply to comment #1)
> Duplicate of bug 699603?
> 
From my observation, the behavior is similar to when I select a folder (but no msg, just to check new msgs), then evo refreshes it and scrolls down to show new msgs if there are any. 

I'd like evo not to do that if I have selected msg in the folder, i.e. I'm reading that msg.

I have to check if this is happening also when there is no new msg in the folder.

But the underlying mechanics could be related to bug 699603, I have no insight on that.
Comment 3 Milan Crha 2015-04-20 12:33:35 UTC 
Jiri, could you try to retest with 3.12.11 or 3.16.x, please? it seems to be fixed from my point of view, if not with 3.12.11, then 3.16.1 should be, according to my tests.
Comment 4 Alexandre Franke 2019-11-12 16:56:22 UTC 
Closing this bug report as no further information has been provided. Please feel free to reopen this bug report if you can provide the information that was asked for in a previous comment.
Thanks!