0.6.0 RC1 - Can't delete oprhaned jobs
Posted: April 10th, 2011, 6:44 am
Hi all,
I've noticed that under Status > Queue Repair, I can't actually delete any orphaned jobs from that page.
When I click the little X next to a job the page quickly reloads itself, but it doesn't actually remove the job from the list (and it doesn't delete anything from the drive either). If I just go ahead and delete the folder myself (directly from the disk), then the job disappears from the list as it should.
From what I can see, I don't think that it's a problem with file/folder permissions anywhere.
Clicking the add button works fine, the job reappears in the queue and then disappears from the list, so it's just the delete feature which seems to be broken.
I've got two computers running 0.6.0RC1, one on Ubuntu 10.10 x86 and the other on 11.04 x64. I've tried the latest version of Firefox and Chrome on each of them, and found the same result every time.
FWIW ... I've noticed this problem has also been present in earlier 0.6 BETAs as well, I just never got around to actually reporting it.
Just let me know if there's any more testing/debugging info that you need.
Thanks,
--David
I've noticed that under Status > Queue Repair, I can't actually delete any orphaned jobs from that page.
When I click the little X next to a job the page quickly reloads itself, but it doesn't actually remove the job from the list (and it doesn't delete anything from the drive either). If I just go ahead and delete the folder myself (directly from the disk), then the job disappears from the list as it should.
From what I can see, I don't think that it's a problem with file/folder permissions anywhere.
Clicking the add button works fine, the job reappears in the queue and then disappears from the list, so it's just the delete feature which seems to be broken.
I've got two computers running 0.6.0RC1, one on Ubuntu 10.10 x86 and the other on 11.04 x64. I've tried the latest version of Firefox and Chrome on each of them, and found the same result every time.
FWIW ... I've noticed this problem has also been present in earlier 0.6 BETAs as well, I just never got around to actually reporting it.
Just let me know if there's any more testing/debugging info that you need.
Thanks,
--David