nautilus "share folder" dialog blocks user from undoing his actions

I'm not able to test this at the moment, so it wold be great if you could please describe what makes this 'impossible'? Thanks!

 Thank you for bringing this bug to our attention.
Does this problem persist in Karmic? Kindly test this in karmic and report back,Papercuts are minor issues that exist in Karmic

 A paper cut is a minor usability annoyance that an average user would encounter on his/her first day of using a new installation of Ubuntu 9.10.

 For further info about papercuts criteria , pls read > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PaperCut

 Don't worry though, This bug has been marked as "incomplete" ONLY in the papercuts project.
 For resolution of the bug, kindly identify the projects affected and assign the bug to that project, otherwise the devs of the concerned project might not be notified of this problem.

This bug affects Ubuntu Gnome 2.26.1. To test this on Karmic I will have to download and install the 9.10 distro, which will should take me a few days...

What makes it "impossible" is that the buttons "Create Share" and "Modify Share" are never re-enabled.

In the first example I gave:

1) Right-click on any folder and choose "Properties"
2) Navigate to the tab "Share"
3) Enable the option "Share this folder" and click on "Create Share" button
4) Disable the option "Share this folder"

In step 4, the correct behaviour should have hidden away the button "Create Share", and have it replaced with an enabled "Modify Share" button.

In the second example I gave:

1) Right-click on any folder with an active share and choose "Properties"
2) Navigate to the tab "Share"
3) Disable the option "Share this folder" and click on "Modify Share" button
4) Enable the option "Share this folder"

In step 4, the correct behaviour should have hidden away the button "Modify Share", and have it replaced with an enabled "Create Share" button.

I can Confirm this behavior still exists in Karmic.

But this is more of a bug in the package, Not a papercut since Samba is not part of the default install. Hence it is "invalid" ONLY in papercuts project.

On Monday 29,June,2009 02:53 PM, mac_v wrote:
> I can Confirm this behavior still exists in Karmic.
>
> But this is more of a bug in the package, Not a papercut since Samba is
> not part of the default install. Hence it is "invalid" ONLY in papercuts
> project.
I don't really care whether it is a papercut or not, but you're being
rather strict about this don't you think? Samba is not a part of the
default install, but nautilus-share is, and as such, bugs in user
experience to do with nautilus-share that conform with the papercut
definition otherwise *are* papercuts.

Papercut or not, I'm still going to be working on this, as it is a bug
worth fixing.

  affects ubuntu/nautilus-share
  status inprogress
  assignee hyperair

--
Regards,
Chow Loong Jin (GPG: 0x8F02A411)
Ubuntu Contributing Developer

@Chow Loong Jin:
AFAIK nautilus-share does not work without Samba. So a default user does not face this issue.
For further info about papercuts criteria , pls read > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PaperCut

Marking a bug as invalid in papercuts project, does not make the bug invalid. It is just to narrow down the scope of the already overwhelmed devs. There has been a huge response to the papercuts projects but shorthanded in devs.
We are trying to fix a minimum of 100 bugs for this cycle.

I'm glad you are personally digging-in to fix this. :)

While you are at it... you could also chip-in to help in the papercuts projects by taking a look into anything else you could fix>
https://bugs.launchpad.net/hundredpapercuts/+bugs

On Monday 29,June,2009 08:10 PM, mac_v wrote:
> @Chow Loong Jin:
> AFAIK nautilus-share does not work without Samba. So a default user does not face this issue.
> For further info about papercuts criteria , pls read > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PaperCut
I'd like to think that the default user needs to share files, and would
use nautilus-share for that. They would, in turn, be prompted to install
samba, and all of this is part of the default user experience.
>
> Marking a bug as invalid in papercuts project, does not make the bug invalid. It is just to narrow down the scope of the already overwhelmed devs. There has been a huge response to the papercuts projects but shorthanded in devs.
> We are trying to fix a minimum of 100 bugs for this cycle.
I'm very well aware of the papercuts project and its aim, thank you very
much for repeating yourself.
>
> I'm glad you are personally digging-in to fix this. :)
I'm the maintainer of nautilus-share, so naturally all bugs regarding
nautilus-share are also my responsibility.
>
> While you are at it... you could also chip-in to help in the papercuts projects by taking a look into anything else you could fix>
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/hundredpapercuts/+bugs
I'll fix anything that bugs me that's within my capability, if I have
the time. And like I said before, I already know about the papercuts
project.

Now then, this whole papercut-or-not business is annoying the hell out
of me so I'd really like to just drop it. What matters here is that the
bug will get fixed, and users will be happy. Whether this is a papercut
or not is an unnecessary detail. What I would appreciate, though, would
be if you thought through things a little more before marking stuff as
invalid.

--
Regards,
Chow Loong Jin (GPG: 0x8F02A411)
Ubuntu Contributing Developer

Kindly understand what papercuts is for.
Fixing a bug can be done from nautilus-share project side.
I'm really not sure why you have to get so worked up over it being a papercut or not! As you said ,It doesnt have to matter if it is a papercut or not, it just needs to get fixed.

Since you are aware of the papercuts project, you must also be aware that the *list of 100 papercuts has been reached* > https://edge.launchpad.net/hundredpapercuts/karmic
And if this was to be taken up as a papercut , it would have been scheduled *only* for the karmic+1 ...!
Wouldnt that would be an unnecessary delay!

On Tuesday 30,June,2009 12:09 AM, mac_v wrote:
> Kindly understand what papercuts is for.
> Fixing a bug can be done from nautilus-share project side.
> I'm really not sure why you have to get so worked up over it being a papercut or not! As you said ,It doesnt have to matter if it is a papercut or not, it just needs to get fixed.
>
> Since you are aware of the papercuts project, you must also be aware that the *list of 100 papercuts has been reached* > https://edge.launchpad.net/hundredpapercuts/karmic
> And if this was to be taken up as a papercut , it would have been scheduled *only* for the karmic+1 ...!
> Wouldnt that would be an unnecessary delay!
>
Conversation taken off the bug, as it's getting pointless and off-topic.

--
Regards,
Chow Loong Jin (GPG: 0x8F02A411)
Ubuntu Contributing Developer

This bug was fixed in the package nautilus-share - 0.7.2-10

---------------
nautilus-share (0.7.2-10) unstable; urgency=low

  * debian/patches/12_undoable-action.patch:
    + Fix bug where user is unable to undo sharing/unsharing a folder without
      closing the property window (LP: #392165)
  * debian/patches/13_permissions.patch:
    + Don't require permissions go+rx on folders to be shared any more, since
  * debian/patches/14_glade-to-gtkbuilder.patch:
    + Migrate from glade to gtkbuilder
      samba doesn't appear to have that requirement
  * debian/patches/*.patch:
    + Organize/Add information to patch headers as per DEP-3
  * debian/control:
    + Drop libglade2-dev build dependency

 -- Chow Loong Jin <email address hidden> Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:43:01 +0100