I guess this was high priority.

This is very much unrelated to any GnuPG code so I can say this is resolved for Gpg4win, too.

because I did not test with gpg4win yet. And I'm not familiar enough with the code base to say that it does not need to be testet with 2.4 again. Feel free to close it and move to done in the gpgcom workboard if you think its resolved for good.

So why not resolved?

For me it is like if you open a save file dialog. You want it to remember where you saved a file the last time you saved it. But if you just browse around and cancel it, it should not store that location.

We don't change settings. We just remember what the user used the last time. That we save this information in the same file as settings doesn't make them settings. (It might be more correct to save last used keys/options in the state file where window sizes are saved since some time to better separate this information from actual settings.)

ok, done for now.

is now hidden in VS-Desktop-3.1.90.287-Beta

Assigned to me for testing.

I do not see any gpgsm processes appear in the task manager on windows when viewing a .eml file which was smime encrypted with the mimetreeparser.
I guess this is enough to move this to done for VSD

Similar fix for KMail/Messagelib https://invent.kde.org/pim/messagelib/-/merge_requests/153

I have added a workaround and tested it on Windows. Works now for me, including T6566.

I think cancel should not save the settings. A case of "uuuh I clicked something wrong and now I am confused" -> "Cancel" -> "Phew everything back to normal". Is more valid then just looking around, canceling and then coming back later and expecing the same state. I would say this resolved.

Looks like Werner fixed this by avoiding unnecessary file changes in the agent.

We always try to update the stub files because meta data of the key material might have changed due to the use on another box. On Windows the file system watch might be triggered by the remove of a key file right before writing it (cf. the usual Windows rename file problem) which is the cause for the loop. The new patches now detect whether a key file actually changed and avoid writing it back to disk.

@ikloecker I suggest giving up on this, I know that it is frustrating but it does not make much sense, it is probably related to some compiler settings / Qt cross compile issue and might be a bug in qt. Just do an old style connect and leave a comment that we will revisit this with Qt6. When VSD 3.2 is our last major release based on Qt5 we should not spend too much time investigating this which might be completely different (or not) with Qt6.

@ikloecker I thought about this some more. Why do we do the READKEY when we could look up the keygrips and see that we already have keys for this. That sounds to me like a simpler fix then changing how gpg-agent behaves here. Although I still think that gpg-agent is in the wrong to just overwrite and potentially delete softkeys here.

In T6584#179021, @ebo wrote:

(It takes maybe 10 second before the file disappears when you hit F5 in the explorer)

Suggested patch{F5300480}

Ok since this does not happen with other cards this is definetly a gnupg issue I just checked with a telesec card and the behavior there is different.

And it's the signals that are not found. I don't see any indication that this has anything to do with the slots/lambdas.

Well, the failed new style connects are logged for me with "QObject::connect: signal not found in QGpgME::QGpgMEQuickJob". I haven't dug into how the check works for those connects. It turns out that none of the three connects to the signals of QuickJob work (two of those connects are done in ProgressDialog). Even the connect to the argument-less done() signal. So this has nothing to do with default arguments. This is very disturbing because this means that any other connect might also be broken.

@werner I think this question is for you to answer. IMO these files should not be overwritten. I mean they could contain actual secret keys instead of just the shadow keys and then those would be overwritten, right?