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 :
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:

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.