Re: [Evolution-hackers] SyncEvolution + EClient API + EXDATE regression (Bug #655253)
On Tue, 2011-09-13 at 18:44 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: On Di, 2011-09-13 at 17:59 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: The root cause of the bug is that the detached recurrences, if created with current Evolution master, do not get the same UID as the original recurring event. I've verified that by looking at the resulting .ics file. It works correctly in 2.32.4. Does anyone know where in the 3.x cycle this broke? Darn, I can no longer reproduce the problem. I was able to reproduce with the source from current master (thus my statement above about the UIDs not matching), but after removing the EXDATE code it all works fine: same UID, no duplicates shown even after restart. Even after restoring the original source it still works (same UID, EXDATE added). Milan, do you agree that the e_cal_util_remove_instances() call can and should be removed? Either way, it only works around whatever is causing the UID issue. Adding the EXDATE just pampers over that problem and still doesn't fix things like remove all recurrences. Hi, yes, I agree, it wasn't the right change, I'm sorry for that. Please revert the commit and reopen the bug. Thanks for the pointer on this. Bye, Milan ___ evolution-hackers mailing list evolution-hackers@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] SyncEvolution + EClient API + EXDATE regression (Bug #655253)
On Mi, 2011-09-14 at 08:28 +0200, Milan Crha wrote: yes, I agree, it wasn't the right change, I'm sorry for that. Please revert the commit and reopen the bug. I reverted the EXDATE part of the commit, but couldn't reopen the bug (Bugzilla does't offer me that option). Can you reopen it? -- Bye, Patrick Ohly -- patrick.o...@gmx.de http://www.estamos.de/ ___ evolution-hackers mailing list evolution-hackers@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] SyncEvolution + EClient API + EXDATE regression (Bug #655253)
On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 09:50 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: On Mi, 2011-09-14 at 08:28 +0200, Milan Crha wrote: yes, I agree, it wasn't the right change, I'm sorry for that. Please revert the commit and reopen the bug. I reverted the EXDATE part of the commit, but couldn't reopen the bug (Bugzilla does't offer me that option). Can you reopen it? Hi, thanks. I see Akhil took care of the reopen. And now just find the proper solution (and possibly when it got broken at the first place). I believe your investigation about newly set UID is correct, I also noticed that they do not match, but I thought it's not relevant, until you corrected my thoughts. Bye, Milan ___ evolution-hackers mailing list evolution-hackers@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] SyncEvolution + EClient API + EXDATE regression (Bug #655253)
On Mo, 2011-09-12 at 09:09 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: On Mo, 2011-09-12 at 07:56 +0200, Milan Crha wrote: On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 10:32 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: Milan, can you shed some light on why the patch solves #655253? I fail to see what e_cal_backend_file_modify_object() has to do with deleting one occurrence of a repeatable event. If the EXDATE was really necessary to avoid having the original and the detached recurrence show up, then IMHO adding the EXDATE only works around the real problem. The real problem is more likely to be in the matching against RECURRENCE-ID. Hi, sure, the thing why I added it there is that when you move one instance of a recurring event to another hour, then you are asked whether you want to change time for all instances or only this instance. Moving only this instance should create a detached instance, and create an exception in the master object. No, creating the exception is not necessary. Suppose you have a VEVENT with RRULE which expands to a regular start time of one recurrence at, say, 20110912T09Z. Then the detached recurrence must have RECURRENCE-ID:20110912T09Z and it will *replace* the regular recurrence without having to add an EXDATE to the parent. That's part of the iCalendar 2.0 semantic. The root cause of the bug is that the detached recurrences, if created with current Evolution master, do not get the same UID as the original recurring event. I've verified that by looking at the resulting .ics file. It works correctly in 2.32.4. Does anyone know where in the 3.x cycle this broke? -- Bye, Patrick Ohly -- patrick.o...@gmx.de http://www.estamos.de/ ___ evolution-hackers mailing list evolution-hackers@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] SyncEvolution + EClient API + EXDATE regression (Bug #655253)
On Di, 2011-09-13 at 17:59 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
On Mo, 2011-09-12 at 09:09 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
On Mo, 2011-09-12 at 07:56 +0200, Milan Crha wrote:
On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 10:32 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
Milan, can you shed some light on why the patch solves #655253? I fail
to see what e_cal_backend_file_modify_object() has to do with deleting
one occurrence of a repeatable event.
If the EXDATE was really necessary to avoid having the original and the
detached recurrence show up, then IMHO adding the EXDATE only works
around the real problem. The real problem is more likely to be in the
matching against RECURRENCE-ID.
Hi,
sure, the thing why I added it there is that when you move one instance
of a recurring event to another hour, then you are asked whether you
want to change time for all instances or only this instance. Moving only
this instance should create a detached instance, and create an exception
in the master object.
No, creating the exception is not necessary.
Suppose you have a VEVENT with RRULE which expands to a regular start
time of one recurrence at, say, 20110912T09Z. Then the detached
recurrence must have RECURRENCE-ID:20110912T09Z and it will
*replace* the regular recurrence without having to add an EXDATE to the
parent. That's part of the iCalendar 2.0 semantic.
The root cause of the bug is that the detached recurrences, if created
with current Evolution master, do not get the same UID as the original
recurring event. I've verified that by looking at the resulting .ics
file.
It works correctly in 2.32.4.
Does anyone know where in the 3.x cycle this broke?
Darn, I can no longer reproduce the problem. I was able to reproduce
with the source from current master (thus my statement above about the
UIDs not matching), but after removing the EXDATE code it all works
fine: same UID, no duplicates shown even after restart. Even after
restoring the original source it still works (same UID, EXDATE added).
Milan, do you agree that the e_cal_util_remove_instances() call can and
should be removed? Either way, it only works around whatever is causing
the UID issue. Adding the EXDATE just pampers over that problem and
still doesn't fix things like remove all recurrences.
Patch is here:
diff --git a/calendar/backends/file/e-cal-backend-file.c
b/calendar/backends/file/e-cal-backend-file.c
index 2dc9a90..e1cfbb3 100644
--- a/calendar/backends/file/e-cal-backend-file.c
+++ b/calendar/backends/file/e-cal-backend-file.c
@@ -2391,9 +2391,6 @@ e_cal_backend_file_modify_object (ECalBackendSync
*backend,
priv-comp = g_list_remove (priv-comp, recurrence);
obj_data-recurrences_list = g_list_remove
(obj_data-recurrences_list, recurrence);
g_hash_table_remove (obj_data-recurrences, rid);
- } else if (obj_data-full_object) {
- /* add exception for the modified instance */
- e_cal_util_remove_instances
(e_cal_component_get_icalcomponent (obj_data-full_object), icalt
}
/* add the detached instance */
--
Bye, Patrick Ohly
--
patrick.o...@gmx.de
http://www.estamos.de/
___
evolution-hackers mailing list
evolution-hackers@gnome.org
To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
