mime-layout part markers get mangled
Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
VM |
In Progress
|
Medium
|
Uday Reddy |
Bug Description
[VM development version at revision 1013]
After deleting and expunging (maybe) and (perhaps) saving, it seems the markers that indicate buffer locations of mime parts all get set to the same value (at about the start/end of the body or so) and thus when decoding end up with no text in the presentation for any given mime part.
The markers for the body start/end of the message in message-pointer are still valid, and I can counteract the behavior by
(with-current-
This works since normally when previewing a message the layout is retrieved from cache, and in the code above the parts are re-parsed for their positions.
This bug is quite hard to track down since it doesn't always occur on a delete/expunge. It may also be a bug in the handling of markers after modifying the length of the buffer through deletes, and thus not a VM issue, though I am suspicious because the markers for the message itself are not affected and thus handled correctly. I have not yet tested this with a emacs -q, perhaps others have seen this behavior.
An obvious solution is simply to freshly parse the mime parts locations each time a message is previewed instead of caching this information, but perhaps the caching is important for larger mails and thus desirable (it takes essentially no time on my machine to do the parsing for any emails I have tried).
And lastly, I have experienced this behavior both on an intel Mac osx 10.6 and a centos linux box.
Changed in vm: | |
status: | New → Triaged |
importance: | Undecided → High |
assignee: | nobody → Uday Reddy (reddyuday) |
milestone: | none → 8.2.0 |
tags: | added: mime |
Changed in vm: | |
status: | Triaged → In Progress |
importance: | High → Low |
milestone: | 8.2.0 → 8.2.1 |
Changed in vm: | |
importance: | Low → Medium |
Roger. I understand, though I haven't seen any instances of this
myself. It is a nasty bug!
Did you try it with different rvisions of VM? Why revision 1013?
Cheers,
Uday