If you run a recent daily build of LO (see build info below), create a new LO writer document, then quite, you get a console message saying: warn:unotools.config:4895:4895:unotools/source/config/configmgr.cxx:153: ConfigManager not empty Now, either it's a problem that the ConfigManager is not empty, in which case it should be properly emptied; or it's not a problem in which case the warning needs to be removed as console noise.
Build info: Version: 7.3.0.0.alpha0+ / LibreOffice Community Build ID: c998691e22ceda15c89d55cf7005201f0392dadb CPU threads: 4; OS: Linux 5.10; UI render: default; VCL: gtk3 Locale: en-US (en_IL); UI: en-US TinderBox: Linux-rpm_deb-x86_64@86-TDF, Branch:master, Time: 2021-10-14_11:54:20 Calc: threaded
On pc Debian x86-64 with master sources updated today, I could reproduce this.
Created attachment 175790 [details] bt with debug symbols for "Office.Commands/Execute" After adding some trace at registerConfigItem and removeConfigItem and when comparing, the only remnant was "Office.Commands/Execute". So I retrieved a bt from where "Office.Commands/Execute" is registered.
Stephan/Noel: In framework/source/services/frame.cxx I tried to change m_aCommandOptions from SvtCommandOptions to std::unique_ptr<SvtCommandOptions> but it failed with: #0 std::__shared_ptr<SvtCommandOptions_Impl, (__gnu_cxx::_Lock_policy)2>::get() const (this=0x20) at /usr/bin/../lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/10/../../../../include/c++/10/bits/shared_ptr_base.h:1330 #1 0x00007fbbb1490848 in std::__shared_ptr_access<SvtCommandOptions_Impl, (__gnu_cxx::_Lock_policy)2, false, false>::_M_get() const (this=0x20) at /usr/bin/../lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/10/../../../../include/c++/10/bits/shared_ptr_base.h:1027 #2 0x00007fbbb1485c35 in std::__shared_ptr_access<SvtCommandOptions_Impl, (__gnu_cxx::_Lock_policy)2, false, false>::operator->() const (this=0x20) at /usr/bin/../lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/10/../../../../include/c++/10/bits/shared_ptr_base.h:1021 #3 0x00007fbbb1484616 in SvtCommandOptions::EstablishFrameCallback(com::sun::star::uno::Reference<com::sun::star::frame::XFrame> const&) (this=0x0, xFrame= uno::Reference to ((anonymous namespace)::XFrameImpl *) 0x2cbd490) at unotools/source/config/cmdoptions.cxx:340 #4 0x00007fbbb61dc9b2 in (anonymous namespace)::XFrameImpl::initListeners() (this=0x2cbd420) at framework/source/services/frame.cxx:509 I noticed the use of weak reference and std::make_shared in unotools/source/config/cmdoptions.cxx. Any idea how to fix this part?
LibreOffice generates tons of false positive warnings, it is just one of those things that happens, no need to worry.
Noel: so does it mean we may remove the SAL_WARN_IF in: 152 utl::ConfigManager::~ConfigManager() { 153 SAL_WARN_IF(!items_.empty(), "unotools.config", "ConfigManager not empty"); 154 } to reduce console noise?
(In reply to Noel Grandin from comment #5) > LibreOffice generates tons of false positive warnings, It actually generates very few false warnings. At least the daily master branch build, anyway. > it is just one of those things that happens, no need to worry. Either this is a false warning, in which case it should not be made; or it is a valid warning, in which case the config manager should be emptied. Which is it?
I gave a try with https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/c/core/+/123762
Julien, I tested out your patch. It looks good. I respectfully disagree with the reviewer - a straight loop is fine for now. My only question is: why would "Office.Commands/Execute" be a problem? I have a utility that shows that "Setup/L10N" doesn't get cleared... Eval, if you want to improve upon the patch, why not fix it after the patch is committed. I can't see any reason why this is more or less readable than having to setup several lambdas for a custom built for_each_if() function! Which would be replaced with std::ranges in C++20.
Evan, seems to me that ConfigManager is never emptied. Doesn't seem like a false positive to me... Noel, why do you say it is a false positive?
From IRC: [06:02:55] <chris_wot> noelgrandin you wrote in https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=145175 that "LibreOffice generates tons of false positive warnings, it is just one of those things that happens, no need to worry." [06:02:57] <IZBot> bug 145175: LibreOffice-Writer normal/medium NEW ConfigManager is not empty when quitting LO Writer (and LO) [06:04:08] <noelgrandin> exactly [06:04:29] <noelgrandin> why would we worry? it's not causing a problem [06:06:23] <chris_wot> so in that case, better to remove the warning? [06:06:44] <chris_wot> if we don't care about the fact that it isn't removed, why muddy up the output with the warning? [06:06:44] <noelgrandin> they can be useful, if you are chasing another related bug [06:07:03] <chris_wot> I'm confused, is it useful or not? [06:07:11] <chris_wot> have we had problems with config mgr? [06:07:30] <chris_wot> it's annoying to have it show output on the workben utilities we are creating [06:08:18] <chris_wot> noelgrandin does this mean it should be a WONTFIX then? [06:08:52] <noelgrandin> it would be a WONTFIX
(In reply to Chris Sherlock from comment #11) Which person has which nick and which function w.r.t. LO development? :-) Also... > [06:08:52] <noelgrandin> it would be a WONTFIX Already explained why that can't be right - whether one believes the config manager should be empty or not. And the IRC chat explained it too... > I respectfully disagree with the reviewer - a straight loop is fine for now. It's not _terrible_; it's just a question of style. I didn't say I reject the patch or anything. > Eyal, if you want to improve upon the patch, why not fix it after the patch is committed. Well, possibly because I'm not really an LO developer. There's only a small chance I would dive into checking out, building and testing. > I can't see any reason why this is more or less readable than having to setup several lambdas for a custom built for_each_if() function! Well, because it separates out the different semantic aspects of the code rather than weaving them together. It is idiomatic according to this paradigm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2tWOdzgXHA but obviously it is at least partially a matter of taste.
Dear Eyal Rozenberg, To make sure we're focusing on the bugs that affect our users today, LibreOffice QA is asking bug reporters and confirmers to retest open, confirmed bugs which have not been touched for over a year. There have been thousands of bug fixes and commits since anyone checked on this bug report. During that time, it's possible that the bug has been fixed, or the details of the problem have changed. We'd really appreciate your help in getting confirmation that the bug is still present. If you have time, please do the following: Test to see if the bug is still present with the latest version of LibreOffice from https://www.libreoffice.org/download/ If the bug is present, please leave a comment that includes the information from Help - About LibreOffice. If the bug is NOT present, please set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED-WORKSFORME and leave a comment that includes the information from Help - About LibreOffice. Please DO NOT Update the version field Reply via email (please reply directly on the bug tracker) Set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED - FIXED (this status has a particular meaning that is not appropriate in this case) If you want to do more to help you can test to see if your issue is a REGRESSION. To do so: 1. Download and install oldest version of LibreOffice (usually 3.3 unless your bug pertains to a feature added after 3.3) from https://downloadarchive.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/old/ 2. Test your bug 3. Leave a comment with your results. 4a. If the bug was present with 3.3 - set version to 'inherited from OOo'; 4b. If the bug was not present in 3.3 - add 'regression' to keyword Feel free to come ask questions or to say hello in our QA chat: https://web.libera.chat/?settings=#libreoffice-qa Thank you for helping us make LibreOffice even better for everyone! Warm Regards, QA Team MassPing-UntouchedBug
Bug still manifests with: Version: 24.2.0.0.alpha1+ (X86_64) / LibreOffice Community Build ID: 516f800f84b533db0082b1f39c19d1af40ab29c8 CPU threads: 4; OS: Linux 6.5; UI render: default; VCL: gtk3 Locale: he-IL (en_IL); UI: en-US The message may differ a little, e.g.: warn:unotools.config:29423:29423:unotools/source/config/configmgr.cxx:147: ConfigManager not empty