On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 15:10 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 21:37 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote:
[old revision of EXDATE conversion]
> > Does that look right?
Hah, no-one dared to say anything! You missed your chance to spot a
weakness in the code above, caught by the SyncEvolution
ical20::testItems test: EXDATEs for all-day events are dates, not times,
so converting them does not make sense.
Here's the updated code. I'm still interested in comments, although I'll
go ahead and give it a try in the nightly testing:
// Make sure that all EXDATE times are in the same timezone as the start
// time. Some servers send them as UTC, which is all fine and well, but
// only if the timezone definition doesn't change. Also, libical does
not
// handle such UTC EXDATEs, so let's convert it while the UTC and
// time zone definition (hopefully) are in sync.
if (TIMEZONE(DTSTART) != "UTZ" && !ISFLOATING(DTSTART)) {
i = 0;
timestamp exdate;
while (i<SIZE(EXDATES)) {
exdate = EXDATES[i];
if (!ISDATEONLY(exdate) &&
(TIMEZONE(exdate) == "UTC" || ISFLOATING(exdate))) {
// "unfloat" floating time stamps: not sure whether that occcurs
// in practice, but it looks as wrong as UTC EXDATEs
EXDATES[i] = CONVERTTOZONE(exdate,DTSTART,TRUE);
}
i=i+1;
}
}
--
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly
The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.
_______________________________________________
os-libsynthesis mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.synthesis.ch/mailman/listinfo/os-libsynthesis
