Re: [Evolution-hackers] SyncEvolution + EClient API + EXDATE regression (Bug #655253)

[Patrick Ohly <patrick ohly gmx de>]

On Mo, 2011-09-12 at 09:09 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> On Mo, 2011-09-12 at 07:56 +0200, Milan Crha wrote:
> > On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 10:32 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> > > Milan, can you shed some light on why the patch solves #655253? I fail
> > > to see what e_cal_backend_file_modify_object() has to do with deleting
> > > one occurrence of a repeatable event.
> > > 
> > > If the EXDATE was really necessary to avoid having the original and the
> > > detached recurrence show up, then IMHO adding the EXDATE only works
> > > around the real problem. The real problem is more likely to be in the
> > > matching against RECURRENCE-ID.
> > 
> > 	Hi,
> > sure, the thing why I added it there is that when you move one instance
> > of a recurring event to another hour, then you are asked whether you
> > want to change time for all instances or only this instance. Moving only
> > this instance should create a detached instance, and create an exception
> > in the master object.
> 
> No, creating the exception is not necessary.
> 
> Suppose you have a VEVENT with RRULE which expands to a regular start
> time of one recurrence at, say, 20110912T090000Z. Then the detached
> recurrence must have RECURRENCE-ID:20110912T090000Z and it will
> *replace* the regular recurrence without having to add an EXDATE to the
> parent. That's part of the iCalendar 2.0 semantic.

The root cause of the bug is that the detached recurrences, if created
with current Evolution master, do not get the same UID as the original
recurring event. I've verified that by looking at the resulting .ics
file.

It works correctly in 2.32.4.

Does anyone know where in the 3.x cycle this broke?

-- 
Bye, Patrick Ohly
--  
Patrick Ohly gmx de
http://www.estamos.de/