Re: Patch for 0.1.8

On, Wed Aug 09, 2006, tpgww@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 09:06:12 +0200
> Marcus von Appen <mva@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Unfortunately this patch odes not fix a 'show hidden files' issue, I
> > discovered just two minutes ago. Just click on the 'Show Hidden Files'
> > icon for a pane, change the directory and see, that you won't see
> > anything :-).
> > Looks like the GtkTreeView breaks.
> 
> Hello again, Marcus
> 
> I don't have that behaviour here, and I can't see why it's
> happening. So some more investigation is in order.

Sorry for not giving more details. I was just a bit - ehm - annoyed that
I possibly have to delete all my configuration stuff again ;-).
 
> Can you please explore, for example:
> 
>  does it happen for any directory ?

Yes, if the option "show parent ".." in filelists" is enabled.
 
>  what if the session is started with hidden items displayed?

Nothing is shown in the affected pane.
 
>  what does the status line text report ?

Tha 0 items from X hidden are displayed. Indifferent if those are hidden
items or not.

>  what happens if you later revert to hide-hidden items ?

The contents are displayed correctly. As said - it only happens on
changing directories. If you stay in one while togglinmg that option
anything's fine.

>  what happens when you change a file-list filter setting ?
>  ([un][re]filtering uses the same mechanism as [un]hiding)

Anything's fine.

> 
>  what happens when you enable the config option "show parent ".." in
> filelists" ?

It only happens then.

> 
>  if you compiled with debug messages enabled, are there any relevant
>  error messages ?

No.

> 
>  did you previously use the last pre-release, and if so, did the same
>  behaviour occur there ?

No and no. I directly moved from 0.1.7 (tried both, with 0.1.7
configuration and a fresh one).

I just noticed, that the parent entry ../ is filtered by the option,
too. So I guess, that the root element of the treeview will be lost,
which might cause any other item to be lost, too. Can you verify that
behaviour?

Regards
Marcus

Other related posts: