Bug#885969: marked as done (reportbug: AssertionError (threading, GUI))
Your message dated Thu, 19 Nov 2020 21:40:55 +0100
with message-id <1f2e0c57-ade3-427e-a506-41fdff70fde4@web.de>
and subject line Re: reportbug: AssertionError (threading, GUI)
has caused the Debian Bug report #885969,
regarding reportbug: AssertionError (threading, GUI)
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
885969: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=885969
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
- To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
- Subject: reportbug: AssertionError (threading, GUI)
- From: Lorenzo Ancora <lorenzolucio+bugs@live.it>
- Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2018 03:31:06 +0100
- Message-id: <151477386643.23603.2405676068911223361.reportbug@MasterPC>
Package: reportbug
Version: 7.1.7
Severity: minor
Dear Maintainer,
sending a bug report without a stable connection to the gateway causes
reportbug to crash with AssertionError, instead of showing the user-friendly
error dialog.
Console OUTPUT: https://paste.debian.net/1003083
"AssertionError: Function should be called in <MainContext of reportbug thread>
but was called in <MainContext of UI thread>"... but assertions should never be
part of the UX. :-)
-- Package-specific info:
** Environment settings:
PAGER="less"
INTERFACE="gtk2"
** /home/lorenzo/.reportbugrc:
reportbug_version "7.1.7"
mode advanced
ui gtk2
smtphost reportbug.debian.org
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 9.3
APT prefers stable
APT policy: (700, 'stable'), (500, 'stable-updates')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386
Kernel: Linux 4.9.0-4-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=it_IT.utf8, LC_CTYPE=it_IT.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=it_IT.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
Versions of packages reportbug depends on:
ii apt 1.4.8
ii python3 3.5.3-1
ii python3-reportbug 7.1.7
reportbug recommends no packages.
Versions of packages reportbug suggests:
pn claws-mail <none>
pn debconf-utils <none>
pn debsums <none>
pn dlocate <none>
ii emacs24-bin-common 24.5+1-11+deb9u1
ii exim4 4.89-2+deb9u2
ii exim4-daemon-light [mail-transport-agent] 4.89-2+deb9u2
ii file 1:5.30-1+deb9u1
ii gir1.2-gtk-3.0 3.22.11-1
ii gir1.2-vte-2.91 0.46.1-1
ii gnupg 2.1.18-8~deb9u1
ii python3-gi 3.22.0-2
ii python3-gi-cairo 3.22.0-2
ii python3-gtkspellcheck 4.0.5-1
pn python3-urwid <none>
ii xdg-utils 1.1.1-1
Versions of packages python3-reportbug depends on:
ii apt 1.4.8
ii file 1:5.30-1+deb9u1
ii python3 3.5.3-1
ii python3-debian 0.1.30
ii python3-debianbts 2.6.1
ii python3-requests 2.12.4-1
python3-reportbug suggests no packages.
-- Configuration Files:
/etc/reportbug.conf changed [not included]
-- no debconf information
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
- To: 885969-done@bugs.debian.org
- Cc: Lorenzo Ancora <lorenzolucio+bugs@live.it>
- Subject: Re: reportbug: AssertionError (threading, GUI)
- From: Nis Martensen <nis.martensen@web.de>
- Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 21:40:55 +0100
- Message-id: <1f2e0c57-ade3-427e-a506-41fdff70fde4@web.de>
- In-reply-to: <151477386643.23603.2405676068911223361.reportbug@MasterPC>
- References: <151477386643.23603.2405676068911223361.reportbug@MasterPC> <151477386643.23603.2405676068911223361.reportbug@MasterPC>
Version: 7.7.0
On 01 Jan 2018 Lorenzo Ancora wrote:
"AssertionError: Function should be called in <MainContext of reportbug thread>
but was called in <MainContext of UI thread>"... but assertions should never be
part of the UX. :-)
While the full backtrace is not available anymore, I believe this was
fixed in reportbug 7.7.0. Closing this bug accordingly.
--- End Message ---
Reply to: