Hello Thomas! As part of the SyncEvolution 1.3 release preparations I did another full test run this weekend. The good news first, I did not encounter the "unexpected update" problem ;-)
But I noticed a regression in the testMerge test. That test checks how the server behaves when client A and B cause an update conflict on the server (= server has updated item from client A, then client B sends an update in the sync where it is supposed to receive that updated data). That test passed with Memotoo when testing SyncEvolution 1.2.1: http://downloads.syncevolution.org/syncevolution/archive/test-results/syncevolution-1-2-1/2011-11-25-14-34_syncevo=syncevolution-1-2-branch_all/testing-amd64/18-memotoo/Client_Sync_eds_contact_testMerge.log Now it failed as follows: Client A sends updated contact with X-AIM added: http://syncev.meego.com/latest/testing-amd64/26-memotoo/Client_Sync_eds_contact_testMerge.update.client.A/syncevolution-log_trm002_003_outgoing.xml In the next session, the conflict occurs because client B sends an update without X-AIM and some other field added: http://syncev.meego.com/latest/testing-amd64/26-memotoo/Client_Sync_eds_contact_testMerge.conflict.client.B/syncevolution-log_trm002_003_outgoing.xml The server seems to merge or overwrite the data on the server; it does not send any data back to client B (go up one level in the link above to see the full sync log and/or all other messages). In the 1.2.1 time frame, Memotoo did send back an updated contact to client B in this sync. Currently that seems to be broken. What happens now is that in the next sync, when client A checks whether anything has changed on the server, it is sent an updated contact with the X-AIM field: http://syncev.meego.com/latest/testing-amd64/26-memotoo/Client_Sync_eds_contact_testMerge.refresh.client.A/syncevolution-log_trm003_006_incoming.xml Now client A and client B are out of sync: client A has the contact with X-AIM, client B doesn't. The test accepts all kinds of conflict resolutions (duplicate items, server wins, client wins), but it does not accept that the clients and server get out of sync. -- 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 SyncEvolution@syncevolution.org http://lists.syncevolution.org/listinfo/syncevolution
