[Akonadi] [Bug 340614] assertion failure in KIMAP::ImapInterval::setBegin
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=340614 --- Comment #12 from RJVB --- I'm not really familiar with IMAP UIDs, but what I gather from the original commit message is that they're not necessarily related to the actual number of messages in a folder. Indeed, it's quite suspicious that the error didn't show every time, and that merits someone having a look to understand why, IMHO (I just don't have the resources right now myself). The only logical explanation I see is that somehow the endpoint didn't get set in cases where the assert didn't fail. That could have been by design, but then the question becomes why I got the abort on something that's not supposed to be an exchange server! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Kdepim-bugs mailing list Kdepim-bugs@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kdepim-bugs
[Akonadi] [Bug 340614] assertion failure in KIMAP::ImapInterval::setBegin
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=340614 --- Comment #11 from Christian Mollekopf --- (In reply to RJVB from comment #10) > PS: wouldn't it be of interest to know why this issue was triggered on a > GMail imap account, which AFAIK no longer provides Exchange features? The codepath is not exchange specific, it's just that the chunking is not actually used if it's not exchange (one large chunk). It would still hit the error after the first chunk though. The only thing that is a bit strange is that the error should be hit every time, meaning it should have shown up during testing? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Kdepim-bugs mailing list Kdepim-bugs@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kdepim-bugs
[Akonadi] [Bug 340614] assertion failure in KIMAP::ImapInterval::setBegin
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=340614 --- Comment #10 from RJVB --- PS: wouldn't it be of interest to know why this issue was triggered on a GMail imap account, which AFAIK no longer provides Exchange features? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Kdepim-bugs mailing list Kdepim-bugs@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kdepim-bugs
[Akonadi] [Bug 340614] assertion failure in KIMAP::ImapInterval::setBegin
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=340614 --- Comment #9 from RJVB --- Yes, I was beaten to it (or would have been if this were a race). In a RR I'd have pointed out that it isn't necessary to use a temp. variable, and that the 1st comment is a little off now, but the purpose is clear. Or so it is when you take the trouble of digging up the original commit message ... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Kdepim-bugs mailing list Kdepim-bugs@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kdepim-bugs
[Akonadi] [Bug 340614] assertion failure in KIMAP::ImapInterval::setBegin
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=340614 Christian Mollekopf changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC||mollek...@kolabsys.com --- Comment #8 from Christian Mollekopf --- As pointed out by christophe, fixed in af03ba2b. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Kdepim-bugs mailing list Kdepim-bugs@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kdepim-bugs
[Akonadi] [Bug 340614] assertion failure in KIMAP::ImapInterval::setBegin
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=340614 --- Comment #7 from Christophe Giboudeaux --- didn't http://commits.kde.org/kdepim-runtime/af03ba2ba2390e2f114caa75d0e997900c456359 and http://commits.kde.org/kdepim-runtime/3e159c9e7bbb34301fa3616c9d6f8671a161a9f4 fix the same thing ? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Kdepim-bugs mailing list Kdepim-bugs@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kdepim-bugs
[Akonadi] [Bug 340614] assertion failure in KIMAP::ImapInterval::setBegin
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=340614 --- Comment #6 from RJVB --- Seems I was right: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/120967/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Kdepim-bugs mailing list Kdepim-bugs@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kdepim-bugs
[Akonadi] [Bug 340614] assertion failure in KIMAP::ImapInterval::setBegin
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=340614
--- Comment #5 from RJVB ---
(In reply to Allen Winter from comment #3)
> try reverting 94b64eebb6a88846b221aad810045fecb4173f79 in
> kdepim-runtime/resources/imap
>
> I can try that myself tomorrow, but I'm leaving for the day.
Anyway, I think that this is what that patch should have looked like (partly):
{{{
// Are we already done?
if (lastUidToSearch >= m_searchUidIntervall.end()) {
m_searchUidIntervall = KIMAP::ImapInterval();
}
else {
//Prepare next chunk
m_searchUidIntervall.setBegin(lastUidToSearch + 1);
}
}}}
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Kdepim-bugs mailing list
Kdepim-bugs@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kdepim-bugs
[Akonadi] [Bug 340614] assertion failure in KIMAP::ImapInterval::setBegin
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=340614 --- Comment #4 from RJVB --- What's the official way of doing such a revert? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Kdepim-bugs mailing list Kdepim-bugs@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kdepim-bugs
[Akonadi] [Bug 340614] assertion failure in KIMAP::ImapInterval::setBegin
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=340614 --- Comment #3 from Allen Winter --- try reverting 94b64eebb6a88846b221aad810045fecb4173f79 in kdepim-runtime/resources/imap I can try that myself tomorrow, but I'm leaving for the day. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Kdepim-bugs mailing list Kdepim-bugs@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kdepim-bugs
[Akonadi] [Bug 340614] assertion failure in KIMAP::ImapInterval::setBegin
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=340614
RJVB changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dvra...@redhat.com
--- Comment #2 from RJVB ---
I don't even understand why the ASSERT is active, because I don't build in
debug mode ...
Anyway, directly upstream of the failing assert is this:
``` C++
//Prepare next chunk
m_searchUidIntervall.setBegin(lastUidToSearch + 1);
//Or are we already done?
if (m_searchUidIntervall.begin() > m_searchUidIntervall.end()) {
```
where m_searchUidIntervall (with double l???) is the ImapInterval class where
things go wrong.
I think that the "or are we already done" test can never be true (the condition
wouldn't pass the assert and ::end returns 0x if no end has been
defined). But if it should be possible, then the assert is wrong.
However, ImapInterval::setBegin is unchanged from kdepimlibs 4.13.3 so I'm at a
loss.
As a side note: 0x is NOT the maximum value an ImapInterval::Id
(qint64) can reach ... (and for a signed int 0x7FF should have been used)
!!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Kdepim-bugs mailing list
Kdepim-bugs@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kdepim-bugs
[Akonadi] [Bug 340614] assertion failure in KIMAP::ImapInterval::setBegin
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=340614 Allen Winter changed: What|Removed |Added CC||win...@kde.org --- Comment #1 from Allen Winter --- this is the exact assert I was trying to get help with today on #kontact. for me it happens in Fedora20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Kdepim-bugs mailing list Kdepim-bugs@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kdepim-bugs
