Are you suggesting that we should apply

--8<--------------------------------------------------------------------->8--
--- a/program/js/app.js
+++ b/program/js/app.js
@@ -5672,7 +5672,7 @@ function rcube_webmail()
   {
     var n, url = {}, mods_arr = [],
       mods = this.env.search_mods,
-      scope = this.env.search_scope || 'base',
+      scope = this.env.search_scope || 'all',
       mbox = this.env.mailbox;

     if (!filter && this.gui_objects.search_filter)
--8<--------------------------------------------------------------------->8--

?  If so, please reopen your upstream issue, and this Debian bug should
tagged ‘upstream’ and marked as forwarded to the GitHub issue.

No. I am not suggesting any specific fix to the javascript code.

I'm saying when I overwrite the app.min.js with the *original* app.js that comes bundled with the package, everything works fine. No changes to the js code were made by me. I have no idea what the actual bug in the app.min.js code is. But I figured this report will help you track down the origin of the problem.


* What exactly did you do (or not do) that was effective

While investigating the issue, I discovered that overwriting the minified app.min.js with the non-minified app.js file resolved the problem. It appears
the app.min.js is probably using a stale version of app.js.

Minifying (and static pre-compression) happens at built time.  When a
source file is manually changed, the generated files that depend on it
need to be manually updated too.  The app.min.js file we *shipped*
matched the original app.js, right?

I have no idea. I know nothing about how such things work and could not speculate on how this bug originated.

Also note that I minifed the app.js file that came with the package with a web-based tool and replaced app.min.js with its output and that works as well.

So it doesn't appear the a minified version of the code is the problem. It just looks to me like app.min.js is using bad code and app.js is using good code. But I don't know for sure. I'll leave that to your more experienced hands to determine.

Reply via email to