Re: [Evolution-hackers] e_cal_remove_object_with_mod() + empty rid: semantic?

2011-05-17 Thread Patrick Ohly
On Mo, 2011-05-16 at 18:06 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: I'll do it as uid[\nrid] so that entries without an rid continue to look exactly like the current ones. Looks good. I ran my KCal-EDS test program which adds, modifies and removes events, including parent and child (= detached recurrence) in

Re: [Evolution-hackers] e_cal_remove_object_with_mod() + empty rid: semantic?

2011-05-16 Thread Milan Crha
On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 12:44 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: I found this in e-data-cal-view.c notify_remove(): 280 /* TODO: store ECalComponentId instead of just uid*/ 281 uid = g_strdup (id-uid); 282 g_array_append_val (priv-removes, uid); In other words, removes

Re: [Evolution-hackers] e_cal_remove_object_with_mod() + empty rid: semantic?

2011-05-16 Thread Patrick Ohly
On Do, 2011-05-12 at 13:17 +0200, Milan Crha wrote: On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 12:44 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: I found this in e-data-cal-view.c notify_remove(): 280 /* TODO: store ECalComponentId instead of just uid*/ 281 uid = g_strdup (id-uid); 282

Re: [Evolution-hackers] e_cal_remove_object_with_mod() + empty rid: semantic?

2011-05-13 Thread Ross Burton
On 12 May 2011 11:44, Patrick Ohly patrick.o...@gmx.de wrote: Can you perhaps comment? You wrote the TODO items below... [snip] I can fix these TODOs. Any objections or concerns? None whatsoever, those are embarrassingly leftin from the very early porting where large chunks of code were copied

Re: [Evolution-hackers] e_cal_remove_object_with_mod() + empty rid: semantic?

2011-05-13 Thread Matthew Barnes
On Fri, 2011-05-13 at 12:48 +0100, Ross Burton wrote: On 12 May 2011 11:44, Patrick Ohly patrick.o...@gmx.de wrote: It'll lead to a change of the D-Bus API. For master that shouldn't be a problem, but I also want this in MeeGo for KCal-EDS, based on 2.32. I guess we have to bite the bullet

Re: [Evolution-hackers] e_cal_remove_object_with_mod() + empty rid: semantic?

2011-05-13 Thread Patrick Ohly
On Fr, 2011-05-13 at 12:48 +0100, Ross Burton wrote: On 12 May 2011 11:44, Patrick Ohly patrick.o...@gmx.de wrote: Can you perhaps comment? You wrote the TODO items below... [snip] I can fix these TODOs. Any objections or concerns? None whatsoever, those are embarrassingly leftin from the

Re: [Evolution-hackers] e_cal_remove_object_with_mod() + empty rid: semantic?

2011-05-13 Thread Ross Burton
On 13 May 2011 16:11, Patrick Ohly patrick.o...@gmx.de wrote: Did the previous code transmit UID+RECURRENCE-ID? I am wondering why Evolution manages to keep views properly in sync despite the lack of the RECURRENCE-ID - and what'll happen when it starts receiving them. I guess I'll find

Re: [Evolution-hackers] e_cal_remove_object_with_mod() + empty rid: semantic?

2011-05-12 Thread Patrick Ohly
Hello Ross! Can you perhaps comment? You wrote the TODO items below... On Di, 2011-05-03 at 18:04 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: I also wonder about the objects-removed signal in ECalView. If there are two events, one with RRULE and one with RECURRENCE-RULE, and both get removed, should there be

Re: [Evolution-hackers] e_cal_remove_object_with_mod() + empty rid: semantic?

2011-05-11 Thread Patrick Ohly
On Di, 2011-05-10 at 10:23 +0200, Milan Crha wrote: On Wed, 2011-05-04 at 17:31 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: On Mi, 2011-05-04 at 09:41 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: On Mi, 2011-05-04 at 07:50 +0200, Milan Crha wrote: I would expect that with CALOBJ_MOD_THIS it may remove only exact

Re: [Evolution-hackers] e_cal_remove_object_with_mod() + empty rid: semantic?

2011-05-10 Thread Milan Crha
On Wed, 2011-05-04 at 17:31 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: On Mi, 2011-05-04 at 09:41 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: On Mi, 2011-05-04 at 07:50 +0200, Milan Crha wrote: I would expect that with CALOBJ_MOD_THIS it may remove only exact component, for uid + NULL-rid the master object (which implies

Re: [Evolution-hackers] e_cal_remove_object_with_mod() + empty rid: semantic?

2011-05-04 Thread Patrick Ohly
On Mi, 2011-05-04 at 07:50 +0200, Milan Crha wrote: I would expect that with CALOBJ_MOD_THIS it may remove only exact component, for uid + NULL-rid the master object (which implies also all generated instances) and keep all detached instances, Okay, then we agree on the desired semantic.

Re: [Evolution-hackers] e_cal_remove_object_with_mod() + empty rid: semantic?

2011-05-04 Thread Patrick Ohly
On Mi, 2011-05-04 at 09:41 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: On Mi, 2011-05-04 at 07:50 +0200, Milan Crha wrote: I would expect that with CALOBJ_MOD_THIS it may remove only exact component, for uid + NULL-rid the master object (which implies also all generated instances) and keep all detached

Re: [Evolution-hackers] e_cal_remove_object_with_mod() + empty rid: semantic?

2011-05-03 Thread Milan Crha
On Tue, 2011-05-03 at 18:04 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: I was hoping to avoid this with more recent EDS, the local file backend and simply calling e_cal_remove_object_with_mod() regardless whether it has an rid or not. But it turns out that e_cal_remove_object_with_mod(rid=) simply calls the