This ensures the unread count for each label is correct.
I often read my list mail from the label list. When I close the thread index
and go back to the label list the unread message count is wrong. This bugs me.
I''m sure a less brutal way of doing this is possible with the
UpdateManager
but that seems complicated and therefore prone to errors.
---
lib/sup/modes/label-list-mode.rb | 4 ++++
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/sup/modes/label-list-mode.rb b/lib/sup/modes/label-list-mode.rb
index 514e9c4..662bb44 100644
--- a/lib/sup/modes/label-list-mode.rb
+++ b/lib/sup/modes/label-list-mode.rb
@@ -41,6 +41,10 @@ protected
buffer.mark_dirty if buffer
end
+ def focus
+ reload # make sure counts are up-to-date
+ end
+
def regen_text
@text = []
labels = LabelManager.listable_labels
--
1.5.4.4
This ensures the unread count for each label is correct.
I often read my list mail from the label list. When I close the thread index
and go back to the label list the unread message count is wrong. This bugs me.
I''m sure a less brutal way of doing this is possible with the
UpdateManager
but that seems complicated and therefore prone to errors.
---
Oops... last patch had focus under protected.
lib/sup/modes/label-list-mode.rb | 5 +++++
1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/sup/modes/label-list-mode.rb b/lib/sup/modes/label-list-mode.rb
index 514e9c4..132b654 100644
--- a/lib/sup/modes/label-list-mode.rb
+++ b/lib/sup/modes/label-list-mode.rb
@@ -29,6 +29,11 @@ class LabelListMode < LineCursorMode
BufferManager.flash "No labels messages with unread messages."
end
end
+
+ def focus
+ reload # make sure unread message counts are up-to-date
+ end
+
protected
def toggle_show_unread_only
--
1.5.4.4
Reformatted excerpts from Grant Hollingworth''s message of 2008-04-01:> This ensures the unread count for each label is correct. > > I often read my list mail from the label list. When I close the thread > index and go back to the label list the unread message count is wrong. > This bugs me. > > I''m sure a less brutal way of doing this is possible with the > UpdateManager but that seems complicated and therefore prone to > errors.It''s probably not ideal but we do the same thing elsewhere because it''s simple. Applied directly to master. Thanks! -- William <wmorgan-sup at masanjin.net>