On Mon, 2014-05-12 at 12:55 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> The X-ABRELATEDNAMES properties were not generated. The labels should be
> redundant, but some peers get confused. Google preserves them as
> stand-alone X-ABLabel without tag. DAViCal preserves them with tag,
> which then happened to confuse SyncEvolution's conversion code (separate
> issue).
This second issue actually is in the groupfield support of libsynthesis:
[2014-05-12 15:02:45.501] Parsing:
* [2014-05-12 15:02:45.501]
BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:3.0
PRODID:-//Synthesis AG//NONSGML SyncML Engine V3.4.0.47//EN
REV:20140512T150240Z
UID:syuid974165.212266710163478
N:Doe;John;;;
FN:John Doe
X-EVOLUTION-FILE-AS:Doe\, John
TITLE:tester
TEL;TYPE=WORK,VOICE:business 1
X-MOZILLA-HTML:FALSE
item3.X-ABLabel:Spouse
item2.X-ABLabel:Manager
item1.X-ABLabel:Assistant
END:VCARD
* [2014-05-12 15:02:45.501] Successfully parsed:
* [2014-05-12 15:02:45.501] Item
LocalID='syuid974165.212266710163478.vcf', RemoteID='',
operation=wants-add, size: [maxlocal,maxremote,actual]
* [2014-05-12 15:02:45.501]
- 0 : integer SYNCLVL [ 0, n/a, 0] : <unassigned>
- 1 : timestamp REV [ 0, 0, 0] : 2014-05-12T15:02:40Z
(TZ: UTC)
- 2 : string UID [ 0, n/a, 27] :
"syuid974165.212266710163478"
- 3 : string GROUP_TAG [ 0, n/a, 0] : <array with 3 elements>
-- element 0 : "item3"
-- element 1 : "item2"
-- element 2 : "item1"
- 4 : string N_LAST [ 0, 0, 3] : "Doe"
- 5 : string N_FIRST [ 0, 0, 4] : "John"
...
- 23 : telephone TEL [ 0, 0, 0] : <array with 1 elements>
-- element 0 : "business 1"
- 24 : integer TEL_FLAGS [ 0, 0, 0] : <array with 1 elements>
-- element 0 : 10
- 25 : integer TEL_SLOT [ 0, 0, 0] : <array with 0 elements>
...
- 83 : string LABEL [ 0, 0, 0] : <array with 3 elements>
-- element 0 : "Spouse"
-- element 1 : "Manager"
-- element 2 : "Assistant"
- 84 : string XPROPS [ 0, 0, 0] : <array with 0 elements>
This field list makes it look like TEL "business 1" at index #0 had the
same group tag as LABEL "Spouse", thus adding a label to a TEL which had
no label.
I think the code which deals with group tags must use the same logic
that I introduced for "sharedfield": a property which has a group field
array, but no group tag, must set an unassigned value in the group field
array, and a property which has a group tag must not reuse any of these
unassigned group tag values.
--
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.
_______________________________________________
os-libsynthesis mailing list
os-libsynthesis@synthesis.ch
http://lists.synthesis.ch/mailman/listinfo/os-libsynthesis
