Trunk build 2003-02-19: WinXP Overview: Should you be able to edit a card that was originally an LDAP entry which was replicated? I found a way to do this via Palm Sync. This is a remote issue but wanted to log it anyways. Steps to reproduce: 1. Configure for an LDAP directory 2. Replicate the LDAP directory so it downloads a copy to the local hard drive (I changed the criteria to only download entries with the name Scott) 3. Perform a palm sync and the palm device displays all the records 4. On the palm device, edit one of the records and add a note (i.e. note1) 5. Perform a palm sync 6. While online in the Mozilla address book query for the entry you just edited 7. While offline in the Mozilla address book query for the same entry Actual Results: - After step 6, online, it displays the LDAP entry from the network because I don't see the note (i.e. note1) - After step 7, offline, it displays the local copy which displays the note that was added in the palm. I cannot edit the card in the Mozilla AB whether I'm offline or online, as expected. This behavior doesn't appear to cause any problems but maybe the user could get into a state where their local and LDAP/network entries won't match. Then I tried to replicate again, thinking that the replication would over write the local copy so the "note1" would not appear but this was not the case. It didn't appear to make any changes to the local entry because I can still see "note1" while offline. Expected Results: The current behavior doesn't cause any problems but the user could get into a state where the local and LDAP/network entry could be out of sync. Maybe for replicated entries only a one way sync should be possible (sync from MozAB to the Palm device). If they try to sync from Palm back to MozAB then disallow this.
Assignee: racham → sspitzer
Mark, what do you think? should update via sync be prevented?
Assignee: mail → bienvenu
Component: Address Book → MailNews: Palm Sync
Product: Mozilla Application Suite → Core
QA Contact: nbaca → vseerror
(In reply to comment #2) > Mark, what do you think? should update via sync be prevented? > Yes, this should be prevented. Whilst I'd like to do it in the ab code as well, you may only be able to do it in the palm sync code due to the way palmsync grabs the database from underneath us.
(In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > Mark, what do you think? should update via sync be prevented? > > > Yes, this should be prevented. Whilst I'd like to do it in the ab code as well, > you may only be able to do it in the palm sync code due to the way palmsync > grabs the database from underneath us. Mark, Might this be prevented with the new AB interface you are working on?
Product: Core → MailNews Core
invalid since we're dropping palm sync
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 10 years ago
Resolution: --- → INVALID
Component: Palm Sync → Palm Sync
Product: MailNews Core → MailNews Core Graveyard
This bug has been buried in the graveyard and has not been updated in over 5 years. It is probably safe to assume that it will never be fixed, so resolving as WONTFIX. [Mass-change filter: graveyard-wontfix-2014-09-24]
Status: REOPENED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 10 years ago → 4 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.