Hello Patrick !
Thanks to run a full test :)
I have tried your links but they do not work... For example:
I have seen in my scripts, I send "X-AIM" in CTCap if vCard is 3.0 and
if client is Evolution or Synthesis.
Your client B has what User Agent ?
Le 02/07/2012 11:02, Patrick Ohly a écrit :
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:
Now it failed as follows:
Client A sends updated contact with X-AIM added:
In the next session, the conflict occurs because client B sends an
update without X-AIM and some other field added:
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:
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.