Closed
Bug 432417
Opened 17 years ago
Closed 17 years ago
calRecurrenceInfo::onStartDateChange leaves wrong RECURRENCE-IDs
Categories
(Calendar :: Internal Components, defect)
Calendar
Internal Components
Tracking
(Not tracked)
VERIFIED
FIXED
0.9
People
(Reporter: dbo, Assigned: dbo)
Details
Attachments
(2 files, 1 obsolete file)
1.28 KB,
text/plain
|
Details | |
4.15 KB,
patch
|
Fallen
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
spin-off bug from bug 368976
When adopting RECURRENCE-IDs of overridden items, those have to be tracked in timezone of the master's DTSTART timezone, otherwise they potentially don't match anymore.
To reproduce:
1. Subscribe to the attached test ics file.
2. Modify the whole series' to start e.g. 5 hours later.
=> in effect, the RECURRENCE-ID of the overridden item doesn't match anymore, you see two occurrences for 30th of march, the overridden one starting on 29th and a proxy starting on 30th.
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•17 years ago
|
||
Assignee: nobody → daniel.boelzle
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Attachment #319548 -
Flags: review?(philipp)
Updated•17 years ago
|
Flags: in-testsuite?
Comment 2•17 years ago
|
||
Didn't you mention something about this not working for RDATEs?
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•17 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 319548 [details] [diff] [review]
fix
Yes, reading <http://tools.ietf.org/rfcmarkup?doc=draft-ietf-calsify-rfc2445bis-08#section-3.8.4.4> again, I think it's valid that RDATE instances could be overridden (RECURRENCE-ID == RDATE).
Attachment #319548 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #319548 -
Flags: review?(philipp)
Assignee | ||
Updated•17 years ago
|
Flags: wanted-calendar0.9+
Updated•17 years ago
|
Flags: blocking-calendar0.9?
Assignee | ||
Updated•17 years ago
|
Flags: blocking-calendar0.9? → blocking-calendar0.9+
Assignee | ||
Comment 4•17 years ago
|
||
this should do for RDATEs, too
Attachment #330541 -
Flags: review?(philipp)
Comment 5•17 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 330541 [details] [diff] [review]
fix - v2
>+ for (var i in ritems) {
>+ var ritem = ritems[i];
Any reason not to use for each (var ritem in ritems) ?
r=philipp
Attachment #330541 -
Flags: review?(philipp) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 6•17 years ago
|
||
No, there is not (I just took over most of the code); changed to use for-each loop.
Checked in on HEAD and MOZILLA_1_8_BRANCH => FIXED.
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 17 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → 0.9
Updated•7 years ago
|
Flags: in-testsuite?
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•