On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 19:53 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: > On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 18:16 +0100, Stefano Maffulli wrote: > > On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 11:58 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > Since this file is specific for syncevolution, you may want to modify > > the mapping in it and see if it solves your problem. > > > > > I think the mapping for X-EVOLUTION-COMPANY should be removed. I don't > > > remember whether we discussed this in the past and a mail search didn't > > > bring it up. > > > > It's a synclet specific for Evolution: you're more expert than us to > > modify the mapping. Feel free to play around and send the updated bsh to > > Funambol for testing. > > Yongsheng, is this something you can have a look at? You would have to > install the Funambol server locally.
After thinking about this some more I noticed that we cannot test this well without help by Funambol: as long as the mapping is bidirectional, our tests (copy from SyncEvolution to server to SyncEvolution) will pass, even if the mapping is wrong and the data is stored incorrectly on the server. If the storage on the server can be verified manually, we might be able to check that the mapping works, but then we are still not 100% sure that the web interface agrees with our interpretation of the server data. Is there a chance to get the X-EVOLUTION-COMPANY line removed from the two .bsh files on the internal development server? Then we could test it with the web interface before making that change permanent. -- 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
