Bug 109935 - "x other persons in the chat" miscount
Summary: "x other persons in the chat" miscount
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: kopete
Classification: Applications
Component: Chat Window (show other bugs)
Version: 0.10.3
Platform: unspecified Linux
: NOR normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Kopete Developers
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2005-07-31 14:38 UTC by min
Modified: 2006-11-06 00:03 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Latest Commit:
Version Fixed In:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description min 2005-07-31 14:38:45 UTC
Version:           0.10.3 (using KDE 3.4.2, Kubuntu Package 4:3.4.2-0ubuntu0hoary1 )
Compiler:          gcc version 3.3.5 (Debian 1:3.3.5-8ubuntu2)
OS:                Linux (i686) release 2.6.10-5-686

Current behaviour:

If you join an irc channel, kopete will show the number of users in the status bar, like this: "x other persons in the chat"

The problem is that either channel itself or the user (myself) will get counted, which will make kopete miscount the 'other persons' by +1. I suspect that it's the user, not the channel, because the count is probably based on a collection of users, not on the listview.

Expected behaviour:

Either 

substract 1, and display something like:
"x-1 other persons in the chat", x being the total number of persons in the chat (one of them is myself, and I'm not an 'other person'

or

change the wording to

"x persons in the chat" (that would be, don't say 'other')

It's just a minor glitch, but it's easy to fix and improves user experience
Comment 1 Nicolas L. 2005-08-19 11:42:06 UTC
I can see this 'bug'
Comment 2 Matthias Granberry 2005-12-14 17:19:39 UTC
SVN commit 488465 by granberry:

Display correct number of people in chat
BUG:109935


 M  +1 -1      chatview.cpp  


--- branches/KDE/3.5/kdenetwork/kopete/kopete/chatwindow/chatview.cpp #488464:488465
@@ -409,7 +409,7 @@
 	if( newState != Typing )
 	{
 		setStatusText( i18n( "One other person in the chat",
-			       "%n other people in the chat", m_manager->members().count() ) );
+			       "%n other people in the chat", m_manager->members().count() - 1 ) );
 	}
 }
 
Comment 3 S. Burmeister 2006-01-10 22:14:15 UTC
Is this the fix that made all other protocolls display "0 other users in chat"? Who counts the users in an IRC chat? A 0 in a chat with mostly only two people (MSN, ICQ, Jabber etc.) is far worse!

If so, why did this patch get through Q/A?
Comment 4 Olivier Goffart 2006-01-10 23:51:46 UTC
SVN commit 496654 by ogoffart:

Revert revision 488465
cf Bug 109935

CCMAIL: matthias.granberry@gmail.com
CCBUG: 109935

The problem is that now the count of others contact is wrong with all other chat than IRC



 M  +1 -1      chatview.cpp  


--- branches/work/kopete/dev-0.12/kopete/kopete/chatwindow/chatview.cpp #496653:496654
@@ -409,7 +409,7 @@
 	if( newState != Typing )
 	{
 		setStatusText( i18n( "One other person in the chat",
-			       "%n other people in the chat", m_manager->members().count() - 1 ) );
+			       "%n other people in the chat", m_manager->members().count() ) );
 	}
 }
 
Comment 5 Olivier Goffart 2006-01-10 23:53:10 UTC
SVN commit 496656 by ogoffart:

Backport revert for bug 109935
CCBUG: 109935


 M  +1 -1      chatview.cpp  


--- branches/KDE/3.5/kdenetwork/kopete/kopete/chatwindow/chatview.cpp #496655:496656
@@ -409,7 +409,7 @@
 	if( newState != Typing )
 	{
 		setStatusText( i18n( "One other person in the chat",
-			       "%n other people in the chat", m_manager->members().count() - 1 ) );
+			       "%n other people in the chat", m_manager->members().count() ) );
 	}
 }
 
Comment 6 Olivier Goffart 2006-01-10 23:54:29 UTC
The fix was incorrect.

The problem is that the channel contact is counted as a contact on IRC.
The solution would be to preciselly identify the channel contact to don't count it.
Comment 7 S. Burmeister 2006-01-11 10:09:15 UTC
Thanks for reverting. If there is work put into not counting the channel, maybe one could also not count bots, if this is at all possible.
Comment 8 Will Stephenson 2006-11-06 00:03:54 UTC
It's correctly counted now - Kopete and Konversation agree.