bug#34974: 27.0.50; Moving article error with duplicate suppression disabled

["Basil L. Contovounesios" <contovob@tcd.ie>]

Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net> writes:

> "Basil L. Contovounesios" <contovob@tcd.ie> writes:
>
>> With gnus-suppress-duplicates left at its default value of nil, trying
>> to move an article with 'B m <group>' gives me the following backtrace:
>>
>> Debugger entered--Lisp error: (wrong-type-argument hash-table-p nil)
>>   remhash("<redacted-message-id>" nil)
>>   gnus-dup-unsuppress-article(1988)
>>   gnus-summary-move-article(nil)
>>   funcall-interactively(gnus-summary-move-article nil)
>>   call-interactively(gnus-summary-move-article nil nil)
>>   command-execute(gnus-summary-move-article)
>>
>> I'm no expert, and I haven't tried reproducing this with a minimal
>> config, but I think gnus-summary-move-article should not call
>> gnus-dup-unsuppress-article when gnus-suppress-duplicates is nil, right?
>>
>> This issue seems to have been uncovered by the switch to hash-tables in
>> bug#33653.  Previously, gnus-dup-unsuppress-article called unintern,
>> which would not complain when its second argument gnus-dup-hashtb was
>> nil, even though it probably should have.
>>
>> Patch to follow.
>
> It looks like the only other call to `gnus-dup-unsuppress-articles' is
> wrapped in a check for `gnus-suppress-duplicates' -- I suppose it would
> be enough just to wrap this one as well?

That is what the proposed patch[1] does.  Is it okay to push this to
master?

[1]: https://debbugs.gnu.org/34973#8

As I mention there, though, I'm not sure such a guard is sufficient in
the case that gnus-suppress-duplicates is enabled at a later stage, but
I will investigate and report this as a separate bug if needed.

Thanks,

-- 
Basil