posted by setec_astronomy on Tue 16th Dec 2008 10:39
Conversations Hi!

This is my second attempt to get a verification whether this behaviour is a bug or a feature (previous attempt was here:

http://osnews.com/conversation/48f48bd1/Bug_flat_comment_view

)

If I try to read the last page of comments for the story
"Does Windows Need a Linux Package Manager?"
with my usual settings (10 comments per page, flat, oldest first),
then the url looks something like this

http://osnews.com/comments/20648?view=flat&threshold=0&sort=comment...

for the (as of this writing) 94 comments. For 93 comments, the offset read 97, I guess we can say that there is a pattern.

The result is, that the 10th comment page contains only a fraction of comments, due to the strange offset. If I manually change the offset to 90, everything works as expected.

Question: Why is the offset set to 96 and not 90?

(The problem occurs only when comments approach 100, I have so far not tried different numbers of comments per page to p
Previous ConversationNext Conversation
Comments:
Conv != Bug Reports
by Adam S on Tue 16th Dec 2008 17:40 UTC
Adam S
Member since:
2005-04-01

Conversations are not the same as bug reports.

Don't expect that posting a conversation will get the response you want. The proper contact info is all over the site for proper bug reports.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Conv != Bug Reports
by setec_astronomy on Tue 16th Dec 2008 20:20 in reply to "Conv != Bug Reports"
setec_astronomy Member since:
2007-11-17

Sorry for (mis)using the conversation page for a bug report. To my defense: I did so after seeing other bugs being reported here too (yeah, weak defense, I know).

So: Should I send a detailed bug report via Email to you
(as indicated in the contact page on osnews?), or is there some other place to drop issue reports?

Thanks in advance & appologies for hijacking the conversation area.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Conv != Bug Reports
by Adam S on Tue 16th Dec 2008 21:17 in reply to "RE: Conv != Bug Reports"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

Don't worry, I've got the report. I just wanted to explain why no one jumped to it before and why it took a "second" report.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Conv != Bug Reports
by setec_astronomy on Tue 16th Dec 2008 21:23 in reply to "RE[2]: Conv != Bug Reports"
setec_astronomy Member since:
2007-11-17

No problem, please see the email I just send for some *context* to my second rambling and a more detailed problem report.

Reply Score: 1