GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 318003
Drag & drop of appointments from one calendar to other should cut &paste
Last modified: 2009-01-27 12:32:42 UTC
Select an already created appointment in 'Personal' calendar. Drag and drop it into one user created local calendar. Appointment gets copied instead
Created attachment 122381 [details] [review] proposed evo patch for evolution; A little code cleanup together with this. Note: It works same wrong as before for the recurring instances, but removes all of them on move. I believe there is a request to fix this in some other bug, so I didn't do anything with it here.
Couple of things in the patch, iirc, old_dtstart.zone would be present only if its a libical builtin timezone, else you may have to get the timezone from the backend using the tzid. Please test the patch with drag and drop of appointments in a exchange calendar which has a windows timezone. If it works fine with the patch, this can be committed. Am setting it needs-work now. + for (subcomp = icalcomponent_get_first_component (icalcomp, ICAL_VTIMEZONE_COMPONENT); + for (subcomp = icalcomponent_get_first_component (icalcomp, ICAL_VEVENT_COMPONENT); These two loops can be merged into one.
Created attachment 127099 [details] [review] proposed evo patch ][ for evolution; The previous patch doesn't apply any more, and those leak fixes aren't accurate too. Thus resending updated patch for actual trunk. Chen, I guess you wrote these comments to other bug than you intended. I cannot find any such lines you are mentioning, neither 'old_dtstart.zone', in the previous patch. :) I tested with exchange account anyway, and I didn't find any issue with that. When I saved an item from an outlook I noticed these lines: X-LIC-ERROR;X-LIC-ERRORTYPE=VALUE-PARSE-ERROR:No value for LOCATION property. Removing entire property: X-LIC-ERROR;X-LIC-ERRORTYPE=VALUE-PARSE-ERROR:No value for CLASS property. Removing entire property: It's very suspicious to me, but that's question for some other bug. Even, before entering such new bug, what do you think about these?
Yeah the comment #1 was for another bug. Had a lot of tabs open and got it wrong..
Patch looks good to commit. That was a lot of code duplication :)
Committed to trunk. Committed revision 37140.