kinmoz Reporter
	Description • 24 years ago

I'm seeing the following assertion quite a bit today while using my 03/09/01 8am 
Win32 Debug build for dogfood.

I guess it gets triggered whenever if I've read all my mail and then I get new 
mail?

Here's the assertion:


NTDLL! 77f762e8()
nsDebug::Assertion(const char * 0x022da460, const char * 0x022da458, const char 
* 0x022da42c, int 219) line 254 + 13 bytes
nsDebug::WarnIfFalse(const char * 0x022da460, const char * 0x022da458, const 
char * 0x022da42c, int 219) line 356 + 21 bytes
nsIOService::GetProtocolHandler(nsIOService * const 0x02fb9ac0, const char * 
0x00000000, nsIProtocolHandler * * 0x0012f4fc) line 219 + 32 bytes
nsIOService::NewChannelFromURI(nsIOService * const 0x02fb9ac0, nsIURI * 
0x066b0830, nsIChannel * * 0x0012f53c) line 309 + 46 bytes
NS_OpenURI(nsIChannel * * 0x0012f578, nsIURI * 0x066b0830, nsIIOService * 
0x02fb9ac0, nsILoadGroup * 0x00000000, nsIInterfaceRequestor * 0x00000000, 
unsigned int 0) line 110 + 20 bytes
NS_OpenURI(nsIStreamListener * 0x066b07d4, nsISupports * 0x00000000, nsIURI * 
0x066b0830, nsIIOService * 0x00000000, nsILoadGroup * 0x00000000, 
nsIInterfaceRequestor * 0x00000000, unsigned int 0) line 172 + 49 bytes
nsStreamLoader::Init(nsStreamLoader * const 0x066b07d0, nsIURI * 0x066b0830, 
nsIStreamLoaderObserver * 0x066b0574, nsISupports * 0x00000000, nsILoadGroup * 
0x00000000, nsIInterfaceRequestor * 0x00000000, unsigned int 0) line 45 + 53 
bytes
NS_NewStreamLoader(nsIStreamLoader * * 0x0012f64c, nsIURI * 0x066b0830, 
nsIStreamLoaderObserver * 0x066b0574, nsISupports * 0x00000000, nsILoadGroup * 
0x00000000, nsIInterfaceRequestor * 0x00000000, unsigned int 0) line 350 + 47 
bytes
nsSound::Play(nsSound * const 0x066b0570, nsIURL * 0x066b0830) line 143 + 69 
bytes
nsStatusBarBiffManager::PerformStatusBarBiff(unsigned int 0) line 140
nsStatusBarBiffManager::OnItemPropertyFlagChanged(nsStatusBarBiffManager * const 
0x0852b560, nsISupports * 0x02ddda80, nsIAtom * 0x02db99e0, unsigned int 1, 
unsigned int 0) line 235
nsMsgMailSession::OnItemPropertyFlagChanged(nsMsgMailSession * const 0x081d4a94, 
nsISupports * 0x02ddda80, nsIAtom * 0x02db99e0, unsigned int 1, unsigned int 0) 
line 228
nsMsgFolder::NotifyPropertyFlagChanged(nsMsgFolder * const 0x02ddda9c, 
nsISupports * 0x02ddda80, nsIAtom * 0x02db99e0, unsigned int 1, unsigned int 0) 
line 2345
nsMsgFolder::SetBiffState(nsMsgFolder * const 0x02db804c, unsigned int 0) line 
1987
nsImapMailFolder::UpdateImapMailboxInfo(nsImapMailFolder * const 0x02db8104, 
nsIImapProtocol * 0x0677a028, nsIMailboxSpec * 0x06699200) line 2207
XPTC_InvokeByIndex(nsISupports * 0x02db8104, unsigned int 12, unsigned int 2, 
nsXPTCVariant * 0x06699440) line 139
EventHandler(PLEvent * 0x06699490) line 509 + 41 bytes
PL_HandleEvent(PLEvent * 0x06699490) line 576 + 10 bytes
PL_ProcessPendingEvents(PLEventQueue * 0x00a83a50) line 509 + 9 bytes
_md_EventReceiverProc(HWND__ * 0x000e058e, unsigned int 49422, unsigned int 0, 
long 11024976) line 1054 + 9 bytes
USER32! 77e7124c()
00a8

	Sheela Ravindran
	Comment 1 • 24 years ago

change qa contact, cc esther

	Sheela Ravindran
	Comment 2 • 24 years ago

cc-ing racham, scott
I think this bug is a dup of bug 71356.

	Sheela Ravindran
	Comment 3 • 24 years ago

adding this to the main biff tracking bug

	Arun Prasannan (polar)
	Comment 4 • 16 years ago

This bug is being marked EXPIRED as it has seen no activity in a very long time.

If you think that the issue reported might still be relevant, please test with a recent release of SeaMonkey and if the problem persists feel free to re-open the report. Thank you.

http://www.seamonkey-project.org/

	Mark Banner (:standard8)
	Comment 5 • 16 years ago

Bulk reopening incorrectly expired bugs - no activity does not constitute no bug - these need proper checking.

	Joshua Cranmer [:jcranmer]
	Comment 6 • 16 years ago

I'm going to guess that no one has seen this assertion in years. Can anyone refute this?

	Joshua Cranmer [:jcranmer]
	Comment 7 • 16 years ago

RESO INCO due to lack of response to last question. If you feel this change was made in error, please respond to this bug with your reasons why.