On Sa, 2011-07-16 at 13:08 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> On Sa, 2011-07-16 at 01:02 +0200, Ove Kåven wrote:
> > Den 11. juli 2011 14:30, skrev Patrick Ohly:
> > >>> I don't have a configuration mechanism in place for this yet. In the
> > >>> meantime, can you perhaps patch SyncContext.cpp and comment out the
> > >>> following code on Maemo 5?
> > >>
> > >> "Patch and comment out"... is the patch to comment this out, or did you
> > >> mean something else by "patch"?
> > >
> > > The patch would be to comment this out.
> >
> > OK. I've tried that. (Apparently you released 1.1.99.5 in the meantime
> > so I updated to that at the same time.) After building that, an
> > attempted normal sync failed to update some stuff because entries were
> > not found or something. Presuming that was expected to happen because of
> > the change in tracking mechanism,
>
> I think your previous version was already based on that revised tracking
> mechanism. If you still have the logs of that failed normal sync, then
> I'd like to have a look to determine why it failed.
Ove sent me the logs. In the one for the sync config I see:
–[2011-07-16 00:39:12.892] 'GetItems' - Read items from DB
implementation, datastore=calendar [--][++] [->end] [->enclosing]
* [2011-07-16 00:39:12.911] ReadItemAsKey aID=(3005,) res=0
* [2011-07-16 00:39:12.911] Executing Script 'afterreadscript'
* [2011-07-16 00:39:12.912] TMimeDirProfileHandler::parseValue:
MIMEStringToField in check mode (no field) failed with val=1.0
* [2011-07-16 00:39:12.912] parseMimeDir: missing 1 of 1 mandatory
properies
* [2011-07-16 00:39:12.912] Failed parsing item
* [2011-07-16 00:39:12.919] ReadItemAsKey aID=(3289,) res=0
* [2011-07-16 00:39:12.919] Executing Script 'afterreadscript'
* [2011-07-16 00:39:12.919] TMimeDirProfileHandler::parseValue:
MIMEStringToField in check mode (no field) failed with val=1.0
* [2011-07-16 00:39:12.920] parseMimeDir: missing 1 of 1 mandatory
properies
* [2011-07-16 00:39:12.920] Failed parsing item
Ove, these are attempts to read items out of the Maemo 5 calendar. Is it
possible that the backend returned empty strings instead of indicating
an error by throwing an exception?
In this case the backend claimed that the items exist with status = 1 =
changed.
--
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.
_______________________________________________
SyncEvolution mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.syncevolution.org/listinfo/syncevolution
