[jammy]backport #1453 from upstream

[Erkin Alp Güney]

In some cases, it was possible for a profile to be set (directly, or
through a hold) even though it wasn't supported. Don't assert in those
cases.

The bug in question makes the gnome-control-center crash if an unsupported
power profile is set using, say, powerprofilesctl.
Should be trivial to cherry-pick without breaking other components.
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-control-center/-/merge_requests/1453

I had to wait for this long because I expected a 42.x backport in the backports repository of .1 release, but no one bothered to do such a backport.

[Erkin Alp Güney (erkinalp9035)]

related freeze exception from upstream: https://gitlab.gnome.org/Teams/Releng/freeze-breaks/-/issues/101

[Sebastien Bacher (seb128)]

Thank you for your bug report. Could you provide some details on how you set a profile which isn't available?

I'm a bit unclear also that it's a fix important enough to justify a backport upload by itself, that's not an issue that users hit in normal conditions.

The fact that we didn't see reports about it until now is also an indication that it's not a common problem

[Erkin Alp Güney (erkinalp9035)]

> Could you provide some details on how you set a profile which isn't available?

I invoked powerprofilectl and "fixed" the performance profile using that. And then gnome-control-center would throw a fatal assertion failure (UI cannot open, basically total non-function of the app), and stop working. If the profile setting is rolled back using the same powerprofilectl, it can be opened again. The patch from upstream converts this error into a logged non-fatal warning.

[Erkin Alp Güney (erkinalp9035)]

> The fact that we didn't see reports about it until now is also an indication that it's not a common problem

Hard to encounter by a casual office user, but power users, overclockers and high performance gamers are very likely to encounter this bug ("performance" profile is conditionally hidden by the gnome-control-center but the test hiding it does not always work correctly, sometimes it is hidden even when it is actually available by the hardware, such as I encountered in my Zen 3 processor).

[Sebastien Bacher (seb128)]

Could you give a more specific example? Do you mean that gamer are likely to want another profile than 'performance' which isn't available/known by the GNOME settings?

[Erkin Alp Güney (erkinalp9035)]

The selector defaults to balance, but an inexperienced gamer or a desparate power user may force the performance profile via the command line, despite the fact gnome-control-center thinks it is not available.

[Sebastien Bacher (seb128)]

Why would they go to the command line rather than switching to performance from the top panel indicator or the settings?

[Erkin Alp Güney (erkinalp9035)]

Failure to understand why that option is hidden, or in some cases, that the profile is actually available but the gnome-control-center hides it anyway.

[Sebastien Bacher (seb128)]

Thanks for the details, I'm closing for the current serie since it's fixed there, we can open 22.04 specific target if we decide to cherrypick a fix there but the lack of reports so far suggest it's not hitting enough users to justify a stable update