Bug 247478 - Wrong calculation of percentage values in progress area of main window
Summary: Wrong calculation of percentage values in progress area of main window
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 247594
Alias: None
Product: kmail2
Classification: Applications
Component: UI (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Platform: Unlisted Binaries Linux
: NOR normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: kdepim bugs
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2010-08-12 10:07 UTC by Elias Probst
Modified: 2010-08-13 02:08 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:
Latest Commit:
Version Fixed In:


Attachments
Screenshot showing the wrong percentage calculation. (14.40 KB, image/png)
2010-08-12 10:07 UTC, Elias Probst
Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Elias Probst 2010-08-12 10:07:19 UTC
Created attachment 50046 [details]
Screenshot showing the wrong percentage calculation.

Version:           unspecified (using Devel) 
OS:                Linux

The calculation of the percentage in the progress area of the main window is messed up completely:

When being at 100%, the progress bar is only filled approximately 10% (see attached screenshot).

It seems, the progress always starts at 100% and then counts down to 0%, while the progress bar, which anyways fills just ~10%, shrinks down to 0.

Maybe this is also related to Akonadi, as the Akonadi KCM shows always something like 'Syncing collection 'Foobar' 100%' for IMAP resources, while the 100% flickers all the time while syncing, but the value doesn't change at all.

Using:
Akonadi Server 1.4.0
KMail2 4.5 SVN 20100811
IMAP resources.

Reproducible: Always
Comment 1 Elias Probst 2010-08-12 15:31:30 UTC
Some progress bars are shown correctly, some not.
Both are progress bars which indicate a "Syncing collection", so I don't know what's the difference between those, which show a wrong percentage and those, which show a correct percentage.

Maybe someone has an idea what distinguishes the wrong ones from the correct ones, then it would be possible to track down the bug.
Comment 2 Christoph Feck 2010-08-13 02:08:54 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 247594 ***