From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eric Abrahamsen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#34973: 27.0.50; gnus-summary-move-article fails due to remhash Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2019 10:12:33 -0700 Message-ID: <87mulkkxha.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> References: <87a7hka0m4.fsf@aia00054aia.gr> <875zs82ukz.fsf@tcd.ie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="158285"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) To: 34973@debbugs.gnu.org Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Mar 24 18:19:51 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1h86ml-000f3W-8L for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 24 Mar 2019 18:19:51 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58662 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h86mk-0001Vh-5t for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 24 Mar 2019 13:19:50 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:43252) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h86k4-0007U9-Hm for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 24 Mar 2019 13:17:05 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h86k3-0006iK-Fh for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 24 Mar 2019 13:17:04 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:43457) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h86k3-0006iE-Bz for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 24 Mar 2019 13:17:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1h86k3-0006N5-30; Sun, 24 Mar 2019 13:17:03 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org In-Reply-To: <87a7hka0m4.fsf@aia00054aia.gr> Resent-From: Eric Abrahamsen Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org, bugs@gnus.org Resent-Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2019 17:17:03 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 34973 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs,gnus X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch X-Debbugs-Original-To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-Received: via spool by submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B.155344779923290 (code B ref -1); Sun, 24 Mar 2019 17:17:03 +0000 Original-Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Mar 2019 17:16:39 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57000 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1h86jf-00063H-5M for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 24 Mar 2019 13:16:39 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:56782) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1h86jd-0005xx-7P for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 24 Mar 2019 13:16:37 -0400 Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]:45616) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h86jY-0006Te-3j for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 24 Mar 2019 13:16:32 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:42843) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h86jU-0006zy-CG for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 24 Mar 2019 13:16:31 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h86ft-0005PB-Tr for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 24 Mar 2019 13:12:47 -0400 Original-Received: from [195.159.176.226] (port=43444 helo=blaine.gmane.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h86fs-0005O1-3U for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 24 Mar 2019 13:12:44 -0400 Original-Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1h86fo-000Xa3-2A for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 24 Mar 2019 18:12:40 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Cancel-Lock: sha1:kHSOs/3GWv9zU6HubiBE27RO+IM= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 209.51.188.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:156710 Archived-At: "Basil L. Contovounesios" writes: > tags 34973 patch > quit > > > > Deus Max writes: > >> Reading the manual >> (https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/elisp/Hash-Access.html#Hash-Access) >> on remhash, it says: "In Emacs Lisp, remhash always returns nil.", so I >> modified the calling function gnus-dup-unsuppress-article in gnus-dup.el, as follows: >> >> 157c157,159 >> < (remhash id gnus-dup-hashtb)))) >> --- >>> (if (hash-table-p gnus-dup-hashtb) >>> (remhash id gnus-dup-hashtb) >>> nil)))) >> >> This patch seems to have fixed the problem and now >> gnus-summary-move-article works fine. ! >> the value of gnus-dup-hashtb was nil, for the problem runs. > > The return value of gnus-dup-unsuppress-article doesn't matter, only > that remhash not be passed a nil gnus-dup-hashtb. > > In other words, gnus-dup-unsuppress-article should either not be called > or should handle the case when it is called before gnus-dup-open has > initialised gnus-dup-hashtb. > > I attach a patch which follows the apparent gnus-sum.el convention of > guarding calls to gnus-dup.el functions based on the value of > gnus-suppress-duplicates. > > This fixes the immediate issue at hand, but I think there may still be a > problem when gnus-suppress-duplicates is enabled at a later time. I > think that deserves a separate bug report, though. I've pushed this for now, thank you. Eric