304859 - imported contacts limited to 1682 if source is Outlook or .csv file

Status: RESOLVED INCOMPLETE

(Thunderbird :: Address Book, defect)

Description

[Michael Deaver]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.10) Gecko/20050716 Firefox/1.0.6
Build Identifier: Thunderbird version 1.0.6 (20050716)

I have 2360 contacts in Outlook XP.  I can only import 1682 into Thunderbird.  I
have tried both the direct import from Outlook and importing a excel spread
sheet and a txt file.

Reproducible: Always

Actual Results:  
only imported 71% of my contacts

Expected Results:  
imported 2360 contacts

Comment 1

[Michael Deaver]

I ment to say .cvs file not .xls.  Sorry!

Comment 2

[Mark Banner (:standard8)]

Attachment: CSV File with 2400 entries.

this Works for me on Linux - id. Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US;
rv:1.9a1) Gecko/20050815 SeaMonkey/1.0a with the attached file (2400 entries,
containing firstname, surname & email). I can't check thunderbird at the moment
(will check it later), but it should have pretty much the same results - the
code is identical if I remember correctly (I'll try thunderbird later)

Reporter, please try with the sample file I've attached and see if you still
get a problem. If not, there may be something in the csv file or from outlook
that thunderbird isn't handling correctly.

Comment 3

[Michael Deaver]

I imported the test file in both .txt and .csv formats.  It appears to have
worked properly both times.

2400 entries both times. 

Comment 4

[Mark Banner (:standard8)]

Michael, could you see if you can look at the entries around number 1682 in 
your csv file and see if there is any strange characters or items that may be 
getting Thunderbird confused?

Also is the last item that is imported, imported correctly, or is the data for 
that card incorrect?

Comment 5

[Michael Deaver]

I deleted contacts and imported them again directly from Outlook 2002.  Only
1682 of 2349 were imported.  They include names from every letter of the
alphabet plus companies which had no first and last names.  i.e. American
Airlines.  I did not see any corrupted contacts.  1682 is a reoccuring count????

Comment 6

[Michael Deaver]

1681, 1682, and 1683 contacts in the .csv file look no different than any other.   
I spot checked many contacts and never saw corrupted contact info.  
Could the contact database file size within Thunderbird exceed Thunderbird's
capabilities?  I do have a lot of notes with most of my contacts.

Comment 7

[Michael Deaver]

I took a csv file and deleted all but 12 columns of data.  All 2349 contacts
loaded.  The main error I see is that the display name box did not fill in
properly.  The first and last names were entered properly but the display name
cell is empty.  database size may be an issue?

Comment 8

[Mark Banner (:standard8)]

(In reply to comment #7)
> I took a csv file and deleted all but 12 columns of data.  All 2349 contacts
> loaded.  The main error I see is that the display name box did not fill in
> properly.  The first and last names were entered properly but the display name
> cell is empty.  database size may be an issue?

The display name box will only fill if you give it an column with that data in 
AFAIK (I think there's a seperate bug on it). Database size shouldn't be an 
issue, though could you let us know the size of your original csv file. I can 
then try & come up with something comparable to check.

Comment 9

[Michael Deaver]

Mark,

I thought I responded earlier but do not see my responce.  The main csv file is
1007k bytes and the 12 column csv file is 282kbytes and all 2349 contacts load.

Comment 10

[Michael Deaver]

The main csv file is 1,007 kbytes and only 1682 of 2349 contacts load.

Comment 11

[Wayne Mery (:wsmwk)]

Michael, if this still fails, can you dummy up the entries that fail (i.e. without email address, phone, etc) and attach file to bug?

Comment 12

[Joshua Cranmer [:jcranmer]]

RESO INCO due to lack of answer to last question. If you feel this change was made in error, please respond to this bug with your reasons why.