[Synckolab] Re: bug-report for version 0.4.24
mozdev.org at rellims.com
Sun Sep 10 20:27:44 EDT 2006
I am just adding my 2 cents:
> - There are problems when I use the field for the second mail address.
I have noticed this too as well as submitted a fix to Niko that
resolves it. The pager number also does not sync in version 0.4.24
I have also seen updates records gets deleted and then return on next
sync. Not exactly sure what causes this to happen.
It would be nice to see the sync process complete faster, however, I
think thats a great thing to do after the project gets to 1.0. A
reliable sync is better then a fast unreliable sync.
> Hi again,
> I just wanted to add further information on my last report:
> > - There are problems when I use the field for the second mail address.
> > When syncing those records loose the second mail address after a
> second run
> > cause it doesn't get stored on the server vCard. Sometimes those
> records even get completely lost.
> Here I mixed things up those are actually two issues that are not
> - The field for the second email address does not get stored in the
> server sided vCard.
> The consequence is that one looses all information in that field, caus
> a later sync
> will notice that as a local change and remove that field locally, too.
> - Sometimes when sync processes changed vCards, it marks the old ones
> as deleted
> but does not completely rewrite the new cards. If you purge your
> mailfolder to
> remove the messages marked as deleted, you lose those records. If you
> don't sync
> kolab gets just further confused, because it also processes the vCards
> marked as
> deleted which leads to the multiplication of identical records.
> > - Another problem seems to exist when updating records on the server
> > In my testrun I changed 24 records which where correctly noticed,
> but while
> > writing those all were deleted but only 3 of them actually rewritten.
> This belongs to point two above.
> > Another thing I noticed is that it takes quite some time to go over
> all those
> > records when updating. Maybe you could consider using an additional
> > mail where the last hash table (like the one stored in the local
> thunderbird profile)
> > is stored, so an update check only needs to read one mail and then
> just react
> > upon changes.
> A further suggestions would be to use the contact's names in the subject
> instead of the pure unique ID. It would help finding mail addresses
> from within
> webmail applications.
> Another interesting feature would be to also synchronize my firefox
> I guess this is not really related to contacts/calendar but this would
> be really
> great and I think it would be a good way to do so, cause I don't want
> to configure
> an additional IMAP access from within a firefox plugin.
> Sincerely yours
> Synckolab mailing list
> Synckolab at mozdev.org
More information about the Synckolab