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 706742 - Search provider is broken / useless
Search provider is broken / useless
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: gnome-boxes
Classification: Applications
Component: search
3.8.x
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: 3.22
Assigned To: GNOME Boxes maintainer(s)
GNOME Boxes maintainer(s)
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2013-08-25 08:18 UTC by drago01
Modified: 2016-03-31 13:22 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: 3.10
GNOME version: ---


Description drago01 2013-08-25 08:18:16 UTC 
When searching for a VM using the shell search provider it finds results but cannot really open them.

Lets say I search for "Windows" it finds my windows VM when I select the entry it opens an empty boxes window. Where I have to click on "New" then "Cancel" and then select the VM from the list. (Which means even more steps then just opening boxes directly.

This used to work in the past not sure when it broke currently running 
gnome-boxes-3.8.4-2.fc19.x86_64
Comment 1 Zeeshan Ali 2013-08-25 12:41:31 UTC 
I can reproduce this issue. Thanks for reporting, I'll look into it this week..
Comment 2 Matthias Clasen 2013-08-26 12:48:00 UTC 
sounds like something we should fix for 3.10
Comment 3 Zeeshan Ali 2013-08-28 01:13:33 UTC 
Turns out this is a regression from commit 14484a31f775d73412cd49dd42e8baae5e75366f ("Asynchronously load VM sources"). Christophe, while it was my suggestion to do it this way, I didn't think implementing will be that easy. :) Could you please provide a fix? If you are busy with other stuff, I can look into it tomorrow evening.
Comment 4 Christophe Fergeau 2013-09-02 15:24:43 UTC 
The commit you reverted to 'fix' that bug was fixing another regression. It seems to me that bug #683489 should be reopened or that a new bug should be opened...
Comment 5 Zeeshan Ali 2013-09-02 15:35:03 UTC 
(In reply to comment #4)
> The commit you reverted to 'fix' that bug was fixing another regression. It
> seems to me that bug #683489 should be reopened or that a new bug should be
> opened...

A new bug would be appropriate yes. I'm hoping you agree that this regression is much worse from user's POV then the one fixed by reverted patch.
Comment 6 Christophe Fergeau 2013-09-02 15:55:53 UTC 
(In reply to comment #5)
> I'm hoping you agree that this regression
> is much worse from user's POV then the one fixed by reverted patch.

Really depends on the user, I've never used the search feature, but you get hit by the other bug as soon as you have used ovirt once. The search bug will probably impact more users, but is also easier to workaround when you hit it.
Comment 7 Zeeshan Ali 2013-09-02 16:04:04 UTC 
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > I'm hoping you agree that this regression
> > is much worse from user's POV then the one fixed by reverted patch.
> 
> Really depends on the user, I've never used the search feature, but you get hit
> by the other bug as soon as you have used ovirt once. The search bug will
> probably impact more users, but is also easier to workaround when you hit it.

The difference to me is not about the demand of the features (there is no way of evaluating that) but rather the impact. Launching of VM from shell is completely broken before this revert while in case of sync loading of sources, Boxes might take a while to startup, its still going to start.