On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 23:49 +, Lukas Zeller wrote:
> On Mar 4, 2010, at 18:49 , Patrick Ohly wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 15:05 +, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> However, while tracking through the code I found that indeed in the
> server, the case of a client sending duplicate s was not hand
Hi Patrick,
On Mar 4, 2010, at 18:49 , Patrick Ohly wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 15:05 +, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> [...]
>> So it seems that the engine does check for the remote ID, but only after
>> having already added the item again.
>
> I think this was due to not enabling . After setting
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 15:05 +, Patrick Ohly wrote:
[...]
> So it seems that the engine does check for the remote ID, but only after
> having already added the item again.
I think this was due to not enabling . After setting
that, the same test passes. Sorry for the confusion - I hadn't quite
r
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 15:05 +, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Another test failure. This time, the SyncEvolution test suite simulates
> the following situation:
> * Client has one added item.
> * Two-way sync gets as far as the client sending the for
> that item.
>
