As we move to supporting folders > 4GB, we need to calculate the total folder size correctly.

(In reply to comment #1) > Created attachment 493638 [details] [diff] [review] > fix v1 No review requests ?

(In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #1) > > Created attachment 493638 [details] [diff] [review] [details] > > fix v1 > > No review requests ? We need xpcshell-test for this.

Comment on attachment 539425 [details] [diff] [review] fix v1.1 thx for the patch; it has bit-rotted badly. Sorry for taking so long to respond to this. I looked at it a long time ago, and what I didn't like was changing all the uses of OnItemIntPropertyChanged to pass around a long long. I realize that adding an other method (OnItemInt64Changed) to nsIFolderListener is painful because of all the implementations of nsIFolderListener. It would probably be easier to simply use OnItemPropertyChanged for the folder size, and pass in the string versions of the long long that changed. I can have a quick look at that...

Makoto-san can you provide an updated patch ?

Comment on attachment 652002 [details] [diff] [review] v2.1 cancel due to rebase

Does this relate to or block any of the other 4GB bugs?

(In reply to Wayne Mery (:wsmwk) from comment #10) > Does this relate to or block any of the other 4GB bugs? Yes, this is a required part of the >4GB effort. The crucial part here is how to solve comment 5. There is a lengthy discussion about it at bug 813459 which stalled due to that. But there seems to be new light in bug 789679 comment 120. I already have a more up-to-date patch for this bug attached to bug 789679. I also know where to make a xpcshell test for this feature. So I am not sure what to do with this bug. It is a pitty nobody found it and linked it to bug 789679. We could have had this partial task nicely separated here :(

(In reply to :aceman from comment #11) > (In reply to Wayne Mery (:wsmwk) from comment #10) > > Does this relate to or block any of the other 4GB bugs? > > Yes, this is a required part of the >4GB effort. > > The crucial part here is how to solve comment 5. There is a lengthy > discussion about it at bug 813459 which stalled due to that. But there seems > to be new light in bug 789679 comment 120. > > I already have a more up-to-date patch for this bug attached to bug 789679. > I also know where to make a xpcshell test for this feature. > > So I am not sure what to do with this bug. It is a pitty nobody found it and > linked it to bug 789679. We could have had this partial task nicely > separated here :( bug 789679 has made much progress, do duping.