194276 - Should you be able to edit a replicated LDAP entry via a Palm sync?

Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX

(MailNews Core Graveyard :: Palm Sync, defect)

Description

[Ninoschka Baca]

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.

Comment 1

[(not reading, please use [e-mail] instead)]

mass re-assign.

Comment 2

[Wayne Mery (:wsmwk)]

Mark, what do you think? should update via sync be prevented?  

Comment 3

[Mark Banner (:standard8)]

(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.

Comment 4

[Wayne Mery (:wsmwk)]

(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?

Comment 5

[David :Bienvenu]

invalid since we're dropping palm sync

Comment 6

[Gordon P. Hemsley [:GPHemsley]]

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]