Patrick wrote: >On Wed, 2009-12-09 at 00:46 +0000, Chen, Congwu wrote: >> On Tue, 08 Dec 2009, Ohly, Patrick wrote: >> > On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 14:57 +0000, Chen, Congwu wrote: >> > > On Tue, 08 Dec 2009, Ohly, Patrick wrote: >> > > > On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 09:57 +0000, Chen Congwu wrote: >> > > > >> > > > The Evolution backend really can't import vCalendar 1.0. libical will >> > > > fail to parse it, because encoding rules are different. There might be >> > > > specific examples that happen to work, but this is not something that >we >> > > > should count on. >> > > Er, the testing sample items for vcalendar 1.0 all have an 'iCalendar >> > > 2.0' >type >> > > (config.insertItem, etc..). They are feed directly to the evolution >> > > backend. >Does >> > > that mean all these sample items are guranteed to be correctly parsed >by libical? >> > >> > Aren't all of these sample items really iCalendar 2.0, taken from >> > test/testcases/ical20.ics? >> That's true only for testItems > >It's also true for all other ical20 tests. Or asked the other way >around, were do we currently have vCalendar 1.0 test data? Are you >perhaps talking about code and tests that you have added, but not >published yet? That's it. We had built-in tests for both vcalendar and icalendar 20 test data, just without a registered test case for that. This leads me to think adding such a test for this. Now I understand the problem: the evolution backend has problems correctly parse some vcalendar 1.0 items, better to rely on the icalendar test items.
Best Regards, Congwu _______________________________________________ SyncEvolution mailing list [email protected] http://lists.syncevolution.org/listinfo/syncevolution
