Hello!
I've started to test SyncEvolution client <-> SyncEvolution server
automatically. The server is currently using the plain file backend and
thus cannot detect add<->add UID conflicts.
In the test of that aspect I noticed the following problem:
* client and server both have a new item with UID=foo
* client sends an Add UID=foo to the server, which accepts the new
item, leading to a duplication on the server
* in the same session, the server sends his version of the UID=foo
item
* the client's backend detects the duplicate and returns 409 to
the engine
Here's the detailed log:
http://syncev.meego.com/2011-12-14-12-24_testing_syncevohttp/testing-amd64/15-syncevohttp/Client_Sync_eds_event_testAddBothSides.send-update.client.B/syncevolution-log.html
* [2011-12-14 12:48:53.896] InsertItemAsKey res=409
* [2011-12-14 12:48:53.897] cannot create record in database
(sta=409)
* [2011-12-14 12:48:53.898] Database Error --> SyncML status 409
* [2011-12-14 12:48:53.899] - Operation add failed with SyncML
status=409
–[2011-12-14 12:48:53.900] End of 'Process_Item' [->top] [->enclosing]
* [2011-12-14 12:48:53.901] processSyncOpItem: Error while processing
item, status=409
* [2011-12-14 12:48:53.902] Irregularity in execution of item,
status=409
–
[2011-12-14 12:48:53.903] 'issue' - issuing command,
Cmd=Status [--][++] [->end] [->enclosing]
* [2011-12-14 12:48:53.903] Command 'Status': is 1-th counted cmd,
cmdsize(+tags needed to end msg)=38, available=149687
(maxfree=260907, freeaftersend=260869,
notUsableBufferBytes()=111220)
* [2011-12-14 12:48:53.904] WARNING: Non-OK Status 409 returned to
remote!
From there on it all goes south ;-)
The next sync in my testing is an intentional slow sync. The server
still has the two items with the same UID, the client adds one, then
rejects the second => slow sync fails, test aborts.
Lukas, can you remind me how this was meant to work?
--
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
