[Bug 9711] New: (Mobile Phone) "Bad Request" reply to (syncevo) OBEX SAN
by bugzilla@moblin.org
http://bugzilla.moblin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9711
Summary: (Mobile Phone) "Bad Request" reply to (syncevo) OBEX
SAN
Classification: Moblin Projects
Product: SyncEvolution
Version: upstream
Platform: Netbook
OS/Version: Moblin Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: Undecided
Component: SyncEvolution
AssignedTo: patrick.ohly(a)intel.com
ReportedBy: pat-moblin(a)mailinator.com
QAContact: yanshuang.zheng(a)intel.com
CC: syncevolution(a)lists.intel.com
Having compiled SyncEvolution 1.0beta1 to test direct (bluetooth syncml) device
sync from desktop (ubuntu karmic) with a Sony Ericsson K700i (quiet old -
SyncML Version 1.1) i get the following error - the sync fails.
Btw. Opensync 0.22 works 3/4, Opensync 0.39 works half-way. Looking for a 1/1
solution I stumbled over syncevolution and am hoping to see it work... and
still have high hopes.
Sorry for not really reading the bug reporting guidelines - please ask if you
need any further information.
# [-- collapse all --][++ expand all ++]
# [2010-02-12 18:02:29.293] CreateContext SyncEvolution// => 0
# [2010-02-12 18:02:29.293] Module_Capabilities:
PLATFORM:Linux
DLL:true
MINVERSION:V1.0.6.0
MANUFACTURER:SyncEvolution
DESCRIPTION:SyncEvolution Synthesis DB Plugin
plugin_datastore_str:no
plugin_datastore_key:yes
ITEM_AS_KEY:yes
plugin_datablob:no
# [2010-02-12 18:02:29.293] Module_PluginParams
Engine=01060100
# [2010-02-12 18:02:29.294] SyncML server account:
# [2010-02-12 18:02:29.294] client: SyncEvolution 1.0beta1 for workstation
# [2010-02-12 18:02:29.294] device ID:
sc-pim-462b4d11-53b1-4184-b8f6-399bf47880d0
# [2010-02-12 18:02:29.296] memo: inactive
# [2010-02-12 18:02:29.296] todo: inactive
# [2010-02-12 18:02:29.296] calendar: inactive
# [2010-02-12 18:02:29.325] creating
/home/pat/.cache/syncevolution/k700i-2010-02-12-18-02/addressbook.before
# [2010-02-12 18:02:29.373]
/home/pat/.cache/syncevolution/k700i-2010-02-12-18-02/addressbook.before
created
# [2010-02-12 18:02:30.008] Connecting Bluetooth device with address
00:0E:07:87:20:93 and channel 15
# [2010-02-12 18:02:30.684] OBEX progress
# [2010-02-12 18:02:30.736] OBEX Transport: get header who from connect
response with value SYNCML-SYNC�
# [2010-02-12 18:02:30.737] Server sending SAN
# [2010-02-12 18:02:30.737] ObexTransport send is called
# [2010-02-12 18:02:30.737] OBEX progress
# [2010-02-12 18:02:30.788] OBEX progress
# [2010-02-12 18:02:30.823] OBEX Request 3 got a failed response Not found
# [2010-02-12 18:02:30.824] TransportException while sending SAN package
# [2010-02-12 18:02:30.825] Server Alerted Sync init failed
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.moblin.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are watching someone on the CC list of the bug.
12 years, 4 months
[Bug 10483] SAN fail when syncing with N900 phone
by bugzilla@moblin.org
http://bugzilla.moblin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10483
--- Comment #7 from pohly <patrick.ohly(a)intel.com> 2010-04-26 06:43:34 PST ---
Congwu, Jingke, what is the status regarding this issue?
We agreed that this looks like a regression in the underlying Bluetooth
transports (Bluez, kernel). To proof that, we need to find an old image where
this kind of sync still works, then install the same SyncEvolution version on a
recent image and show that it fails. If SyncEvolution is the same in this test
but the OS is not, then it should be investigated by the OS maintainers.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.moblin.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are watching someone on the CC list of the bug.
12 years, 4 months
[Bug 10120] New: SAN parsing regression introduced by SAN 1.1 support
by bugzilla@moblin.org
http://bugzilla.moblin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10120
Summary: SAN parsing regression introduced by SAN 1.1 support
Classification: Moblin Projects
Product: SyncEvolution
Version: upstream
Platform: Netbook
OS/Version: Moblin Linux
Status: ASSIGNED
Severity: major
Priority: Undecided
Component: SyncEvolution
AssignedTo: congwu.chen(a)intel.com
ReportedBy: congwu.chen(a)intel.com
QAContact: jingke.zhang(a)intel.com
CC: syncevolution(a)lists.intel.com
I found this regression with Jingke, I did a silly mistake in "SAN version
check" commit which always take a valid SAN message as invalid, thus breaking
the server alert sync feature.
Fixed in commit 9c67f994b75c92c348f4a28dd484dd9d37d99681 in libsynthesis.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.moblin.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are watching someone on the CC list of the bug.
12 years, 4 months
[Bug 1197] syncevo-phone-config: broken Python syntax, error messages
by bugzilla@meego.com
http://bugs.meego.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197
--- Comment #17 from pohly <patrick.ohly(a)intel.com> 2010-04-25 23:24:11 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> Regarding the newly implemented combined calendar+todo test, I agree testing
> calendar and todo separately and then checking URI equalness is a good hint for
> most cases, but I am not entirely sure whether it works reliably.
>
> The first concern is does calendar and todo has the same URI will always mean
> they are combined? I think there is at least one slightly difference between
> the two:
> combined means not only same URI but also same type, while it might be possible
> that the phone has calendar and todo with the same URI but different types.
How can that possibly work? The type is associated with the URI, so it has to
be the same.
> The second concern is does testing possible calendar URIs for Calendar and
> calendar URIs + todo URIs for Todo works? Is it possible that the phone has a
> combined calendar+task and has the URI named as 'todo'?
I find that unlikely.
(In reply to comment #16)
> Tested with N900 works but there are some syntax error need be fixed, see
>
> http://git.moblin.org/cgit.cgi/syncevolution/commit/?h=congwu&id=04948ba9...
Thanks, merged.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.meego.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are watching someone on the CC list of the bug.
12 years, 4 months
[Bug 1197] syncevo-phone-config: broken Python syntax, error messages
by bugzilla@meego.com
http://bugs.meego.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197
--- Comment #15 from congwu <congwu.chen(a)intel.com> 2010-04-25 19:05:33 PDT ---
One typo: allContacts-> allSources
-if options.source and options.source not in allContacts:
- parser.error("Option -s/--source can only be one of " +
"|".join(allContacts) + ".")
+if options.source and options.source not in allSources:
+ parser.error("Option -s/--source can only be one of " +
"|".join(allSources) + ".")
Regarding the newly implemented combined calendar+todo test, I agree testing
calendar and todo separately and then checking URI equalness is a good hint for
most cases, but I am not entirely sure whether it works reliably.
The first concern is does calendar and todo has the same URI will always mean
they are combined? I think there is at least one slightly difference between
the two:
combined means not only same URI but also same type, while it might be possible
that the phone has calendar and todo with the same URI but different types.
The second concern is does testing possible calendar URIs for Calendar and
calendar URIs + todo URIs for Todo works? Is it possible that the phone has a
combined calendar+task and has the URI named as 'todo'? In other words, I think
both calendar and todo has to test with all possible URIs for calendar and todo
(which means test cases were not effectively reduced but increased actually).
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.meego.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are watching someone on the CC list of the bug.
12 years, 4 months
[Bug 1197] syncevo-phone-config: broken Python syntax, error messages
by bugzilla@meego.com
http://bugs.meego.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197
--- Comment #14 from pohly <patrick.ohly(a)intel.com> 2010-04-24 04:59:41 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> > - check whether we can get the correct config without adding tests
> >
> > Congwu, does the following logic work:
> > - if normal testing of "calendar" and "todo" finds the same URI,
> > conclude that they have to be combined
> > - if the URI is different, no need to combine; we can avoid false
> > positives by testing the self.uris['calendar'] after the ones
> > specific to "todo"
>
> I have implemented this, but wasn't able to test with a device which actually
> combines events and tasks.
After thinking some more about this, I think the current version of the script
will fail to detect combined calendar+todo for Nokias, because of the changed
order of URIs that we test. I think Nokia phones ignore the URI that we send to
it and then decides on the data store entirely based on the data type. That way
the first URIs for calendar and todo are accepted ("Calendar" and "Task"),
which breaks the "URI equal" comparison.
The fix should be simple - test the calendar URIs first when testing todos, as
it was done before my last commit:
diff --git a/test/syncevo-phone-config.py b/test/syncevo-phone-config.py
index 3f93458..38d7cc6 100755
--- a/test/syncevo-phone-config.py
+++ b/test/syncevo-phone-config.py
@@ -350,7 +350,7 @@ class TestingConfiguration():
self.uris = {}
self.uris['addressbook'] = ['Contact', 'contact', 'Contacts',
'contacts', 'Addressbook', 'addressbook']
self.uris['calendar'] = ['Calendar', 'calendar',
'Agenda','agenda']
- self.uris['todo'] = ['Task', 'task', 'Tasks', 'tasks',
'Todo','todo'] + self.uris['calendar']
+ self.uris['todo'] = self.uris['calendar'] + ['Task', 'task',
'Tasks', 'tasks', 'Todo','todo']
self.uris['memo'] = ['Memo', 'memo', 'Notes', 'notes', 'Note',
'note']
if (types):
I've put that into the git branch.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.meego.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are watching someone on the CC list of the bug.
12 years, 4 months