1:12 p.m.
http://bugzilla.moblin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6664
Summary: Mobical: priorities of tasks not matched with other
applications
Classification: Moblin Projects
Product: SyncEvolution
Version: upstream
Platform: Netbook
OS/Version: Moblin Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: Undecided
Component: SyncML
AssignedTo: patrick.ohly(a)intel.com
ReportedBy: yanshuang.zheng(a)intel.com
QAContact: yanshuang.zheng(a)intel.com
CC: shuang.wan(a)intel.com, syncevolution(a)lists.intel.com
Release Milestone: Undecided
sync: 0.9.0.99.3
When a task is created or modified via mobical.net web interface, its priority
is always displayed as "High" after synced to client. The value of its priority
on mobical.net is
1 -- High
2 -- Normal
3 -- Low
For moblin and other distros with evolution, [1,2,3] are all displayed as
priority "High" on application ui. Generally, applications follow this rule:
undefined - 0
high - [1,2,3,4]
normal - 5
low - [6,7,8,9,.....]
If we configure tasks with priority larger than 3 on client and then sync it to
mobical.net, the value will be displayed directly by the number. (see
screenshot) It is better to map them to strings like "Low" when displaying.
--
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.
7:36 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 6664] Mobical: priorities of tasks not matched with other applications
http://bugzilla.moblin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6664
pohly <patrick.ohly(a)intel.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority|Undecided |P2
AssignedTo|patrick.ohly(a)intel.com |yongsheng.zhu(a)intel.com
Target Milestone|--- |0.9.1
--- Comment #2 from pohly <patrick.ohly(a)intel.com> 2009-10-12 01:36:19 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
sync: 0.9.0.99.3
When a task is created or modified via mobical.net web interface, its priority
is always displayed as "High" after synced to client. The value of its
priority
on mobical.net is
1 -- High
2 -- Normal
3 -- Low
This seems to be common, although the vCalendar 1.0 standard itself doesn't
specify it. Funambol uses the same range.
For moblin and other distros with evolution, [1,2,3] are all
displayed as
priority "High" on application ui. Generally, applications follow this rule:
undefined - 0
high - [1,2,3,4]
normal - 5
low - [6,7,8,9,.....]
That's the value range specified by the iCalendar 2.0 standard.
If we configure tasks with priority larger than 3 on client and then
sync it to
mobical.net, the value will be displayed directly by the number. (see
screenshot) It is better to map them to strings like "Low" when displaying.
We should use the iCalendar 2.0 range internally in the Synthesis field list
and map to the smaller 1-3 range when talking to peers in vCalendar 1.0.
Yongsheng, can you have a look at this?
--
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.
4:02 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 6664] Mobical: priorities of tasks not matched with other applications
http://bugzilla.moblin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6664
--- Comment #3 from yongsheng zhu <yongsheng.zhu(a)intel.com> 2009-10-12 22:02:02
---
We should use the iCalendar 2.0 range internally in the Synthesis
field list
and map to the smaller 1-3 range when talking to peers in vCalendar 1.0.
so
I'll map iCalendar 2.0 range to vCalendar1.0, not only for Mobical.
--
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.
6:56 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 6664] vCalendar 1.0: priorities of tasks not matched with other applications (Mobical)
http://bugzilla.moblin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6664
pohly <patrick.ohly(a)intel.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|Mobical: priorities of |vCalendar 1.0: priorities
|tasks not matched with |of tasks not matched with
|other applications |other applications
| |(Mobical)
--- Comment #4 from pohly <patrick.ohly(a)intel.com> 2009-10-13 00:56:23 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> We should use the iCalendar 2.0 range internally in the
Synthesis field list
> and map to the smaller 1-3 range when talking to peers in vCalendar 1.0.
so I'll map iCalendar 2.0 range to vCalendar1.0, not only for Mobical.
Correct.
Mobical is the only server we exchange tasks with using vCalendar 1.0, isn't
it?
--
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.
7:02 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 6664] vCalendar 1.0: priorities of tasks not matched with other applications (Mobical)
http://bugzilla.moblin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6664
--- Comment #5 from yongsheng zhu <yongsheng.zhu(a)intel.com> 2009-10-14 01:02:53
---
(In reply to comment #4)
(In reply to comment #3)
> > We should use the iCalendar 2.0 range internally in the Synthesis field list
> > and map to the smaller 1-3 range when talking to peers in vCalendar 1.0.
> so I'll map iCalendar 2.0 range to vCalendar1.0, not only for Mobical.
Correct.
Mobical is the only server we exchange tasks with using vCalendar 1.0, isn't
it?
There should be 4 places we have to check and do the conversion:
client backend read, client backend write, server incoming, outgoing to server
.
Server side:
if an incoming task and its type is vCalendar1.0,
do priority conversion after incoming in 'incomingscript'
if an outgoing task and its type is vCalendar1.0,
do priority conversion before outgoing in 'outgoingscript'
These 2 scripts are global and can be applied for all servers when
sending/receving tasks.
client backend
if reading a task from client backend,
do priority conversion after read in 'afterreadscript'.
if wanting to write a task to client backend,
do priority conversion before writing in 'beforewritescript'
Since these should be applied for all vCalendar1.0 related backends, but
currently there is no mechanism to support this in our code though we have
backend specified scripts(bug5633 asks) for them.
So I suggest adding a mechanism to solve this issue.
One global script should be defined for each kind of data type. And for each
backend source, we check its mimetype and firstly invoke its own specified
script for that source and then invoke our global scripts. Below is the code
from SyncSource:
" <beforewritescript><![CDATA[\n";
if(!info.m_incomingScript.empty()) {
xmlstream <<
" " << info.m_incomingScript <<
"\n";
}
///> check its mimetype and add corresponding global scripts
xmlstream <<
" itemdata = MAKETEXTWITHPROFILE(" << info.m_profile
<<
", \"EVOLUTION\");\n"
" ]]></beforewritescript>\n"
In bug5633, we add two fields 'm_incomingScript' and 'm_outgoingScript'
and I
think their names are not suitable. They should use 'm_afterreadscript' and
'm_beforewritescript' for client backends.
Another possible issue is:
if we read a task in iCalendar2.0 format from client backend with a priority
and then send it in vCalendar1.0, then when refreshing from server, we might a
different priority value other than our sent and they should belong to one
category(high, normal, low). In some servers, if it has more than 3 categories,
like memotoo, which has 5 categories, very high, high, normal, low, very low,
this conversion could make some problems on its web page view.
--
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.
7:21 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 6664] vCalendar 1.0: priorities of tasks not matched with other applications (Mobical)
http://bugzilla.moblin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6664
--- Comment #6 from pohly <patrick.ohly(a)intel.com> 2009-10-14 01:21:47 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
(In reply to comment #4)
So I suggest adding a mechanism to solve this issue.
One global script should be defined for each kind of data type. And for each
backend source, we check its mimetype and firstly invoke its own specified
script for that source and then invoke our global scripts.
Doing the right thing by default sounds, eh, right. But I think we should give
a backend the chance to override that. For example, it might use its own custom
mapping for priorities despite using vCalendar 1.0.
Below is the code
from SyncSource:
" <beforewritescript><![CDATA[\n";
if(!info.m_incomingScript.empty()) {
xmlstream <<
" " << info.m_incomingScript <<
"\n";
}
///> check its mimetype and add corresponding global scripts
xmlstream <<
" itemdata = MAKETEXTWITHPROFILE(" <<
info.m_profile <<
", \"EVOLUTION\");\n"
" ]]></beforewritescript>\n"
In bug5633, we add two fields 'm_incomingScript' and 'm_outgoingScript'
and I
think their names are not suitable. They should use 'm_afterreadscript' and
'm_beforewritescript' for client backends.
Okay.
Another possible issue is:
if we read a task in iCalendar2.0 format from client backend with a priority
and then send it in vCalendar1.0, then when refreshing from server, we might a
different priority value other than our sent and they should belong to one
category(high, normal, low). In some servers, if it has more than 3 categories,
like memotoo, which has 5 categories, very high, high, normal, low, very low,
this conversion could make some problems on its web page view.
I agree that loosing information isn't nice, but what can be done about it? If
the interchange format only has three levels, some information is inevitably
lost.
In the case of Memotoo, aren't we using iCalendar 2.0? In that case no
information should be lost.
--
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.
7:36 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 6664] vCalendar 1.0: priorities of tasks not matched with other applications (Mobical)
http://bugzilla.moblin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6664
--- Comment #7 from yongsheng zhu <yongsheng.zhu(a)intel.com> 2009-10-14 01:36:13
---
Doing the right thing by default sounds, eh, right. But I think we
should give
a backend the chance to override that. For example, it might use its own custom
mapping for priorities despite using vCalendar 1.0.
Yes, it's reasonable.
I'll take care this.
In the case of Memotoo, aren't we using iCalendar 2.0? In that
case no
information should be lost.
Yes, Memotoo uses iCalendar2.0.
Suppose below sync flow(syncs are one way):
memotoo -> client -> mobical -> client ->memotoo
Though a task is not changed anymore in the flow, its priority category might
be changed.
Here I raise this issue for the completeness of consideration. I think it is
valuable to do this conversion.
--
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.
2:13 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 6664] vCalendar 1.0: priorities of tasks not matched with other applications (Mobical)
http://bugzilla.moblin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6664
--- Comment #8 from yongsheng zhu <yongsheng.zhu(a)intel.com> 2009-10-14 20:13:33
---
Patrick, the 3 patches are ready. Please help review and merge them in branch
'origin/bug6664'. Thanks.
--
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.
8:50 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 6664] vCalendar 1.0: priorities of tasks not matched with other applications (Mobical)
http://bugzilla.moblin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6664
pohly <patrick.ohly(a)intel.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
--- Comment #9 from pohly <patrick.ohly(a)intel.com> 2009-10-15 02:50:51 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
Patrick, the 3 patches are ready. Please help review and merge them
in branch
'origin/bug6664'. Thanks.
Looks good. Merged.
--
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.
7:52 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 6664] vCalendar 1.0: priorities of tasks not matched with other applications (Mobical)
http://bugzilla.moblin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6664
pohly <patrick.ohly(a)intel.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|FIXED |INTEGRATED
--- Comment #10 from pohly <patrick.ohly(a)intel.com> 2009-10-19 13:52:23 ---
Integrated in SyncEvolution 0.9.1 beta 2 = 0.9.0.99.4 in Moblin.
--
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.
2:21 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 6664] vCalendar 1.0: priorities of tasks not matched with other applications (Mobical)
http://bugzilla.moblin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6664
shuangeeer <yanshuang.zheng(a)intel.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |VERIFIED
--- Comment #11 from shuangeeer <yanshuang.zheng(a)intel.com> 2009-10-19 20:21:43
---
they are mapped now.
verified with pkg 0.9.0.99.4
--
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.
1:54 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 6664] vCalendar 1.0: priorities of tasks not matched with other applications (Mobical)
http://bugzilla.moblin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6664
--- Comment #12 from yongsheng zhu <yongsheng.zhu(a)intel.com> 2009-10-20 19:54:14
---
2. sythesis
==20352== 1,261 (112 direct, 1,149 indirect) bytes in 2 blocks are definitely
lost in loss record 46 of 83
==20352== at 0x4C232DC: operator new(unsigned long)
(vg_replace_malloc.c:230)
==20352== by 0x5E9200B: sysync::TSyncSession::StartMessage(sml_sync_hdr_s*)
(syncsession.cpp:5076)
==20352== by 0x5E5C903: sysync::TSyncClientBase::StartMessage(void*, void*,
sml_sync_hdr_s*) (syncclientbase.cpp:376)
==20352== by 0x7818CC2: smlProcessData (mgrcmddispatcher.c:247)
==20352== by 0x5E3796A: sysync::TSyncClient::processingStep(unsigned short&,
sysync::TEngineProgressType*) (syncclient.cpp:541)
==20352== by 0x5E5CB9D:
sysync::TClientEngineInterface::SessionStep(sysync::SessionType*, unsigned
short&, sysync::TEngineProgressType*) (syncclientbase.cpp:274)
==20352== by 0x50C0AA7:
SyncEvo::SharedEngine::SessionStep(boost::shared_ptr<sysync::SessionType>
const&, unsigned short&, sysync::TEngineProgressType*) (SynthesisEngine.cpp:95)
==20352== by 0x50E8BC5: SyncEvo::SyncContext::doSync()
(SyncContext.cpp:1777)
==20352== by 0x50EC228: SyncEvo::SyncContext::sync(SyncEvo::SyncReport*)
(SyncContext.cpp:1572)
==20352== by 0x43AC59: SyncEvo::TestEvolution::doSync(int const*,
std::string const&, SyncEvo::SyncOptions const&) (in
/work/runtests/head-evolution-testing/build/src/.libs/lt-client-test)
==20352== by 0x44F871: SyncEvo::SyncTests::doSync(SyncEvo::SyncOptions
const&) (in
/work/runtests/head-evolution-testing/build/src/.libs/lt-client-test)
==20352== by 0x55C9B3: SyncEvo::SyncTests::doSync(char const*,
SyncEvo::SyncOptions const&) (in
/work/runtests/head-evolution-testing/build/src/.libs/lt-client-test)
==20352== by 0x4406F9:
SyncEvo::SyncTests::testComplexRefreshFromServerSemantic() (in
/work/runtests/head-evolution-testing/build/src/.libs/lt-client-test)
==20352== by 0x55A86D: CppUnit::TestCaller<SyncEvo::SyncTests>::runTest()
(in /work/runtests/head-evolution-testing/build/src/.libs/lt-client-test)
==20352== by 0x4E52406: CppUnit::TestCaseMethodFunctor::operator()() const
(in /usr/lib/libcppunit-1.12.so.1.0.0)
==20352== by 0x4E447D3: CppUnit::DefaultProtector::protect(CppUnit::Functor
const&, CppUnit::ProtectorContext const&) (in
/usr/lib/libcppunit-1.12.so.1.0.0)
==20352== by 0x4E4E278:
CppUnit::ProtectorChain::ProtectFunctor::operator()() const (in
/usr/lib/libcppunit-1.12.so.1.0.0)
==20352== by 0x4E4DFBB: CppUnit::ProtectorChain::protect(CppUnit::Functor
const&, CppUnit::ProtectorContext const&) (in
/usr/lib/libcppunit-1.12.so.1.0.0)
==20352== by 0x4E59D9F: CppUnit::TestResult::protect(CppUnit::Functor
const&, CppUnit::Test*, std::string const&) (in
/usr/lib/libcppunit-1.12.so.1.0.0)
==20352== by 0x4E5209C: CppUnit::TestCase::run(CppUnit::TestResult*) (in
/usr/lib/libcppunit-1.12.so.1.0.0)
==20352== by 0x4E529FB:
CppUnit::TestComposite::doRunChildTests(CppUnit::TestResult*) (in
/usr/lib/libcppunit-1.12.so.1.0.0)
==20352== by 0x4E52925: CppUnit::TestComposite::run(CppUnit::TestResult*)
(in /usr/lib/libcppunit-1.12.so.1.0.0)
==20352== by 0x4E529FB:
CppUnit::TestComposite::doRunChildTests(CppUnit::TestResult*) (in
/usr/lib/libcppunit-1.12.so.1.0.0)
==20352== by 0x4E52925: CppUnit::TestComposite::run(CppUnit::TestResult*)
(in /usr/lib/libcppunit-1.12.so.1.0.0)
==20352== by 0x4E59B29: CppUnit::TestResult::runTest(CppUnit::Test*) (in
/usr/lib/libcppunit-1.12.so.1.0.0)
==20352== by 0x4E5C121: CppUnit::TestRunner::run(CppUnit::TestResult&,
std::string const&) (in /usr/lib/libcppunit-1.12.so.1.0.0)
==20352== by 0x4E5F13A: CppUnit::TextTestRunner::run(std::string, bool,
bool, bool) (in /usr/lib/libcppunit-1.12.so.1.0.0)
==20352== by 0x567669: main (in
/work/runtests/head-evolution-testing/build/src/.libs/lt-client-test)
{
<insert a suppression name here>
Memcheck:Leak
fun:_Znwm
fun:_ZN6sysync12TSyncSession12StartMessageEP14sml_sync_hdr_s
fun:_ZN6sysync15TSyncClientBase12StartMessageEPvS1_P14sml_sync_hdr_s
fun:smlProcessData
fun:_ZN6sysync11TSyncClient14processingStepERtPNS_19TEngineProgressTypeE
fun:_ZN6sysync22TClientEngineInterface11SessionStepEPNS_11SessionTypeERtPNS_19TEngineProgressTypeE
fun:_ZN7SyncEvo12SharedEngine11SessionStepERKN5boost10shared_ptrIN6sysync11SessionTypeEEERtPNS3_19TEngineProgressTypeE
fun:_ZN7SyncEvo11SyncContext6doSyncEv
fun:_ZN7SyncEvo11SyncContext4syncEPNS_10SyncReportE
fun:_ZN7SyncEvo13TestEvolution6doSyncEPKiRKSsRKNS_11SyncOptionsE
fun:_ZN7SyncEvo9SyncTests6doSyncERKNS_11SyncOptionsE
fun:_ZN7SyncEvo9SyncTests6doSyncEPKcRKNS_11SyncOptionsE
fun:_ZN7SyncEvo9SyncTests36testComplexRefreshFromServerSemanticEv
fun:_ZN7CppUnit10TestCallerIN7SyncEvo9SyncTestsEE7runTestEv
fun:_ZNK7CppUnit21TestCaseMethodFunctorclEv
fun:_ZN7CppUnit16DefaultProtector7protectERKNS_7FunctorERKNS_16ProtectorContextE
fun:_ZNK7CppUnit14ProtectorChain14ProtectFunctorclEv
fun:_ZN7CppUnit14ProtectorChain7protectERKNS_7FunctorERKNS_16ProtectorContextE
fun:_ZN7CppUnit10TestResult7protectERKNS_7FunctorEPNS_4TestERKSs
fun:_ZN7CppUnit8TestCase3runEPNS_10TestResultE
fun:_ZN7CppUnit13TestComposite15doRunChildTestsEPNS_10TestResultE
fun:_ZN7CppUnit13TestComposite3runEPNS_10TestResultE
fun:_ZN7CppUnit13TestComposite15doRunChildTestsEPNS_10TestResultE
fun:_ZN7CppUnit13TestComposite3runEPNS_10TestResultE
}
--
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.
1:57 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 6664] vCalendar 1.0: priorities of tasks not matched with other applications (Mobical)
http://bugzilla.moblin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6664
--- Comment #13 from yongsheng zhu <yongsheng.zhu(a)intel.com> 2009-10-20 19:57:03
---
sorry, please ignore above comment.
--
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.
4715
days inactive
4726
days old
syncevolution-issues@syncevolution.org
12 comments
1 participants
participants (1)
-
bugzilla＠moblin.org