Belated notifications?

[Michael Schwendt]

I'm facing an issue with F22 where notifications in GNOME Shell seem to
survive a shutdown/reboot. Eventually I notice there are notifications,
and when I look them up, they are about events from the previous day,
for example.

Something similar to "You may unplug the drive", and it has been
disconnected already long ago. Apparently, the system didn't notice or
didn't inform the notification system that it may expire the message.

"An important software update has failed", and clicking it only starts
gnome-software with no hint on what has failed or when. The last update
has been done with dnf, btw.

[Adam Williamson]

On Mon, 2015-04-27 at 23:17 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>  I'm facing an issue with F22 where notifications in GNOME Shell
> seem 
>  to
>  survive a shutdown/reboot. Eventually I notice there are 
>  notifications,
>  and when I look them up, they are about events from the previous day,
>  for example.
>  
>  Something similar to "You may unplug the drive", and it has been
>  disconnected already long ago. Apparently, the system didn't notice 
>  or
>  didn't inform the notification system that it may expire the message.
>  
>  "An important software update has failed", and clicking it only 
>  starts
>  gnome-software with no hint on what has failed or when. The last 
>  update
>  has been done with dnf, btw. 
Well, that seems like kind of a complex issue. It doesn't seem safe to
simply assume all notifications older than 'X' are obsolete and should
not be shown - seems far too simple. So, I'm not sure there's a single
'fix' for this.

In any case this is clearly a GNOME thing not a Fedora thing, so it'd
probably be best to discuss it on a GNOME list, or at least on the
desktop@ list rather than test@ ?
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net

[Kamil Paral]

>  I'm facing an issue with F22 where notifications in GNOME Shell
> seem to
>  survive a shutdown/reboot. Eventually I notice there are notifications,
>  and when I look them up, they are about events from the previous day,
>  for example.
>  
>  Something similar to "You may unplug the drive", and it has been
>  disconnected already long ago. Apparently, the system didn't notice or
>  didn't inform the notification system that it may expire the message. 
That's this:
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=746027

However, I'm not sure whether the updated package is already in F22 or not. Could you
provide your gnome-shell version in that bug report and ask whether it should be fixed in
it or not yet? Maybe they have missed some corner cases.

>  
>  "An important software update has failed", and clicking it only starts
>  gnome-software with no hint on what has failed or when. The last update
>  has been done with dnf, btw. 
Can you please file a bug against gnome-software, in GNOME Bugzilla? I have discussed this
with Matthias Clasen, he says the notifications should carry a hint to the program in
question and open the correct part of the program. In case of gnome-software, you should
see an upgrade results overview (with the same output as in `pkcon offline-status`),
instead of just opening the app in the default view. It's a bug.

[Michael Schwendt]

On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 04:44:42 -0400 (EDT), Kamil Paral wrote:

>  > I'm facing an issue with F22 where notifications in GNOME
> Shell seem to
>  > survive a shutdown/reboot. Eventually I notice there are notifications,
>  > and when I look them up, they are about events from the previous day,
>  > for example.
>  > 
>  > Something similar to "You may unplug the drive", and it has been
>  > disconnected already long ago. Apparently, the system didn't notice or
>  > didn't inform the notification system that it may expire the message.
>  
>  That's this:
>  https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=746027
>  
>  However, I'm not sure whether the updated package is already in F22 or not. Could you
> provide your gnome-shell version in that bug report and ask whether it should be fixed in
> it or not yet? Maybe they have missed some corner cases.
>   
That ticket talks about dismissing/closing notifications, which may be
something completely different.

I'm not a fan of the current notification system. Typically I don't
notice the small circle right of the date. I don't think I closed/dismissed
notifications before they would come back after reboot. I likely didn't
open them. They become stale, apparently don't expire, and nothing checks
whether they are still current?

Just some minutes ago, I noticed the circle, clicked on it:
Software Updates available, but the started gnome-software claims
"""Software is up to date (Last checked: 12:41)""".

Meanwhile, running "dnf update" shows 64 new packages.

Guys, that smells like major breakage in several areas to me. The last
update with dnf was run on 2015-04-24, so what does the notification
refer to?

I take it there is no history feature available in gnome-software?

>  > "An important software update has failed", and
> clicking it only starts
>  > gnome-software with no hint on what has failed or when. The last update
>  > has been done with dnf, btw.
>  
>  Can you please file a bug against gnome-software, in GNOME Bugzilla? I have discussed
> this with Matthias Clasen, he says the notifications should carry a hint to the program in
> question and open the correct part of the program. In case of gnome-software, you should
> see an upgrade results overview (with the same output as in `pkcon offline-status`),
> instead of just opening the app in the default view. It's a bug.
>  
Usually I'm too late filing such tickets and developers are aware of
the problem already, use something newer, while Fedora has included
broken releases. Anyway, I've opened 748582 and 748583.

[Kamil Paral]

>  > That's this:
>  > https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=746027
>  > 
>  > However, I'm not sure whether the updated package is already in F22 or not.
>  > Could you provide your gnome-shell version in that bug report and ask
>  > whether it should be fixed in it or not yet? Maybe they have missed some
>  > corner cases.
>  > 
>  
>  That ticket talks about dismissing/closing notifications, which may be
>  something completely different.
>  
>  I'm not a fan of the current notification system. Typically I don't
>  notice the small circle right of the date. I don't think I closed/dismissed
>  notifications before they would come back after reboot. I likely didn't
>  open them. They become stale, apparently don't expire, and nothing checks
>  whether they are still current? 
I understand now, so yeah, that's likely a different problem. Some notifications
should expire after certain actions (like actually unplugging a drive), and they don't
seem to. This would be worth another bug report.

>  
>  Usually I'm too late filing such tickets and developers are aware of
>  the problem already, use something newer, while Fedora has included
>  broken releases. Anyway, I've opened 748582 and 748583. 
Thanks, I CC'd myself to both of them and provided some comments.

[Adam Williamson]

On Tue, 2015-04-28 at 13:34 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>  but the started gnome-software claims
>  """Software is up to date (Last checked: 12:41)""".
>  
>  Meanwhile, running "dnf update" shows 64 new packages. 
Software and dnf use separate metadata caches and refresh schedules,
so this kind of mismatch is not unusual (though it does seem to always
surprise people).
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net

[Michael Schwendt]

On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 09:06:35 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:

>  Software and dnf use separate metadata caches and refresh schedules,
>  so this kind of mismatch is not unusual (though it does seem to always
>  surprise people). 
How would that explain it? I did enter a notification about updates
being available, didn't it? Even if the metadata were old, they would
need to contain upgrades compared with the local RPM database, or else
an update-check would fail and there would _not_ be a notification about
updates.

Last DNF based update has been _four_ (!) days ago, so why did I
receive a notification about software updates being available when
gnome-software thinks everything is up-to-date?

[Adam Williamson]

On Tue, 2015-04-28 at 23:40 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>  On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 09:06:35 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>  
>  > Software and dnf use separate metadata caches and refresh 
>  > schedules,
>  > so this kind of mismatch is not unusual (though it does seem to 
>  > always
>  > surprise people).
>  
>  How would that explain it? I did enter a notification about updates
>  being available, didn't it? 
I cut that part out of the context, if you look. I wasn't responding
to that part, only the part about Software and dnf disagreeing about
whether updates were available.

At a guess that was an old notification and the updates had
subsequently been installed somehow, but that's only a guess.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net

[Luya Tshimbalanga]

On 28/04/15 02:40 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>  On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 09:06:35 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > Software and dnf use separate metadata caches and refresh schedules,
> > so this kind of mismatch is not unusual (though it does seem to always
> > surprise people).
>  How would that explain it? I did enter a notification about updates
>  being available, didn't it? Even if the metadata were old, they would
>  need to contain upgrades compared with the local RPM database, or else
>  an update-check would fail and there would _not_ be a notification about
>  updates.
>
>  Last DNF based update has been _four_ (!) days ago, so why did I
>  receive a notification about software updates being available when
>  gnome-software thinks everything is up-to-date? 
I wonder if there is a mechanism
that notify Gnome Software via pkcon to
refresh the status after dnf did the update.
I would think such mechanism would be in place already and such task
done automatically.

-- 
Luya Tshimbalanga
Graphic & Web Designer
E: luya(a)fedoraproject.org
W: http://www.coolest-storm.net