>For "server update/client update" conflicts it becomes more difficult.
>If we send a temporary error code to the server and then an update in
>the next sync ourselves, will the server understand? Should we do the
>merging ourselves, even on clients?
Why do you think the server cannot understand? Are there some examples?
Seems servers should likely handle such scenario, i.e. client side update
operation
failed unexpectedly (out of disk?)
Anyway, we will first have a test first.
>
>I'd like to see tests for atomic updates be added first:
> * In Client::Source, open two sources and simulate the two kinds
> of conflicts. The source which runs into a conflict should
> return a suitable error (TBD) instead of overwriting more recent
> data.
> * In Client::Sync, devise an injection mechanism (possibly hooked
> into the source progress events) which injects conflicting
> changes when the sync is already running.
>
Agree, I will add it first.
_______________________________________________
SyncEvolution mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.syncevolution.org/listinfo/syncevolution
