No problem Patrick :)
Le 13/03/2012 10:43, Patrick Ohly a écrit :
Sorry for the late reply,
I read this on my phone and then forgot to follow up when back at the
On Tue, 2012-03-06 at 17:16 +0100, Thomas Pequet wrote:
> Le 06/03/2012 13:14, Patrick Ohly a écrit :
>> Thomas Pequet wrote:
>> It's a bit curious that in one case the anchor is a time stamp, in the
>> other a number. Both are strings sent by the Memotoo server. Did you
>> perhaps change the anchor formatting from "seconds since epoch as time
>> stamp" to "seconds since epoch as integer"? I haven't checked
>> 20120228T115051Z matches 1330608696000 when interpreted like that.
> It is strange, Memotoo return only date with seconds (ex:
> 1330608696000) not timestamp... So why SyncEvolution store the
> timestamp ????
SyncEvolution and libsynthesis treats the sync anchor as string. It
should never convert to a time stamp. Does your user still have other
logs? He can do a "grep -l -r 20120228T115051Z ~/.cache/syncevolution"
to find all relevant log files.
I do not know, I will send him an email.
Question: Does Memotoo must respond "Next" and "Last" with date format
as "20120228T115051Z" or "1330608696000" (<= actually) is accepted