Foreign X-Props in VALARMs are lost during roundtrip

RESOLVED FIXED in 1.0b1

Status

defect
RESOLVED FIXED
14 years ago
10 years ago

People

(Reporter: dmose, Assigned: Fallen)

Tracking

({dataloss})

Dependency tree / graph

Details

Attachments

(1 obsolete attachment)

Currently, VALARMs are serialized without an ACTION property, which is required
by RFC 2445.  This means that modifying an ICS calendar created by another app
which has VALARMs will corrupt any VALARMs there.

Updated

14 years ago
Depends on: 298358
Reporter

Updated

14 years ago
Reassigning to Joey, since he owns the dependent bug which will cause this to be fixed.
Assignee: shaver → jminta
Reporter

Updated

14 years ago
No longer blocks: lightning-0.1
Target Milestone: --- → Lightning 0.2

Comment 2

13 years ago
After Bug 315051 we now serialize with an ACTION property.  We'll still lose x-props from foreign alarms though.

Updated

13 years ago
Summary: VALARM serialization problems → Foreign X-Props in VALARMs are lost during roundtrip
I kinda suspect that this is fixed now.
Keywords: qawanted

Comment 4

13 years ago
(In reply to comment #3)
> I kinda suspect that this is fixed now.
> 
Nope, we need to replicate the general fix for alarm components too.
iCal and Evolution appear to use X- properties, so this probably needs to block.  We'd like to see a low-risk fix though, which seems likely to mean something less correct than splitting of calIAlarm.
Flags: blocking0.3+
Keywords: qawanted
Reporter

Updated

13 years ago
Whiteboard: [needs patch]
jminta thinks that the properties used by Evolution and iCal here wouldn't actually be missed if they were lost.  Waiting on more analysis...
Flags: blocking0.3+ → blocking0.3?
Whiteboard: [needs patch] → [needs patch][needs input from jminta]

Comment 7

13 years ago
(In reply to comment #6)
> Waiting on more analysis...
My argument here is not that the way they use them isn't interesting (it's nearly identical to our method), but rather that the way people use multiple calendaring apps isn't interesting.  This bug only becomes meaningful in the case that people repeatedly edit the same data-source from multiple applications, in which case the data about missed alarms may be lost.  Given that no one has reported a bug about 'dismissed alarms in other apps re-fired after sunbird edit,' this tells me that this usage case is rare, if not non-existent.

That seems like sound reasoning to me.  Removing from the blocker list.
Flags: blocking0.3? → blocking0.3-
Whiteboard: [needs patch][needs input from jminta] → [needs patch]
When we do get around to fixing this, we should probably break the X-props thing out so that VCALENDAR, VTIMEZONE, VEVENT/VTODO, and VALARM can each use it and each have their own bag. That seems like the only way to preserve and round-trip X-PROPS at each level.
Reporter

Updated

13 years ago
Target Milestone: Lightning 0.3 → Sunbird 0.5
Not going to make the 0.5 train.
Target Milestone: Sunbird 0.5 → ---
Moving bugs from Joey without a patch back to nobody, since Joey has basically left the project.
Assignee: jminta → nobody
Flags: blocking-calendar0.7?
Given our tight schedule and the fact that the Calendar devs already have too
much on their plate for 0.7, this is unlikely to make it for 0.7 unless someone
steps up and finishes this.
Flags: blocking-calendar0.7? → blocking-calendar0.7-
Flags: blocking-calendar0.7-
Bug 353492 will probably fix this, since a whole new calIAlarm interface will be added that saves x-props.
Depends on: 353492
Whiteboard: [needs patch]
Fixed by bug 471973.
Assignee: nobody → philipp
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 10 years ago
No longer depends on: 353492
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → 1.0

Comment 15

10 years ago
judging comment 5 : does the new alarm-interface store x-props in alarms? This would solve the problem with dimissing one alarm dismisses all alarms as noticed in bug 353492.
It stores x-props, but I believe we don't store the last-ack in the valarm but rather on the item itself. As noted in the bug you mentioned, I'm not quite sure we even need to let the user dismiss multiple alarms for the same event separately if we are smart about how we display the alarm.

Comment 17

10 years ago
Posted file 308538 (obsolete) —
Attachment #378253 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #378253 - Attachment is patch: false
Assignee

Updated

10 years ago
Target Milestone: 1.0 → 1.0b1
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.