On Sun, 2015-03-08 at 22:37 +0530, Khurshid Alam wrote:
Hi,
I a using syncevolution-1.5-0ubuntu4 (& eds-3.12.11-0ubuntu1) on
Ubuntu Vivid. After adding google account in Ubuntu-Online-Accounts I
could NOT make it sync with google contacts.
Initially Evolution contacts also did not work as “contacts” feature
for evolution app was NOT enabled in Google developer/account console
(As commented by Alberto Mardegan on the bug
report:https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/account-plugins/+bug/139...).
But after Alberto enabled it, it started to work with Evolution.
However it still fails with syncevolution ( recreating the account in
UOA did not help).
For example, running,
'''
SYNCEVOLUTION_DEBUG=1 syncevolution --print-databases –daemon=no\
loglevel=2 backend=carddav username=uoa:3,google-contacts\
syncURL=https://www.googleapis.com/.well-known/carddav
'''
gives: “PROPFIND: Neon error code 1: 403 Forbidden, must not
retry”. Here is the complete log:
http://paste.ubuntu.com/10563001/
At loglevel=4 one would also see the actual HTTP traffic, which contains
the real reason for the 403 error in the error response body.
AFAIK, syncevolution & evolution both using same
access-token/refresh-token stored in UOA. So why is it working for
evolution & failing for syncevolution?
One possible reason is that Evolution uses GData APIs and SyncEvolution
uses CardDAV. Those are controlled by different scopes in OAuth.
I recently did the same exercise (getting SyncEvolution to work for
OAuth on Ubuntu Vivid) and only got it to work after changing the Vivid
system files. This can't be the right solution for Vivid users - but
what is? Alberto, can you clarify?
As far as I remember, there were several things not quite right:
* CardDAV not listed in scopes.
* CardDAV not enabled in Google Console.
* Key used for GNOME too short, causing Google to not return
refresh tokens: the effect was that access worked for an hour
after a manual login, then failed until the next manual login.
--
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly
The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.