After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 561312 - open this recurring instance or series
open this recurring instance or series
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: evolution
Classification: Applications
Component: Calendar
2.26.x (obsolete)
Other Linux
: Normal major
: ---
Assigned To: evolution-calendar-maintainers
Evolution QA team
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2008-11-18 06:21 UTC by Chenthill P
Modified: 2013-09-13 00:58 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Attachments
evo side fix (11.88 KB, patch)
2009-03-09 11:11 UTC, Chenthill P
committed Details | Review
eds part of it (2.76 KB, patch)
2009-03-09 11:11 UTC, Chenthill P
committed Details | Review

Description Chenthill P 2008-11-18 06:21:45 UTC
We should ask the user whether he wants to open that instance or the series while opening recurring appointments. We ask whether user wants to modify this instance or series later while modifying. To make changes to a recurring instance and applying it to the series would be buggy and needs to be handled properly in all backends. It would be better to ask it while opening the recurring event rather than after modifying it.
Comment 1 Chenthill P 2009-03-09 11:06:24 UTC
Without having this dialog while opening the editor, just cleaned up the code to sanitize the master event while modifying all instances. The recurrence dialog will be shown only for master events and not for detached instances. 


The handling of dates while modifying a recurring appointment has been removed at the backend as its handled in evo side.
Comment 2 Chenthill P 2009-03-09 11:11:19 UTC
Created attachment 130320 [details] [review]
evo side fix
Comment 3 Chenthill P 2009-03-09 11:11:52 UTC
Created attachment 130321 [details] [review]
eds part of it
Comment 4 Milan Crha 2009-03-17 14:11:42 UTC
Ouch, I had some comments on these, which got lost :(
If I recall correctly, it was something like:
a) wasn't the main advantage of this bug to ask users to what edit at
   the beginning, not at the end?
b) I copied some similar code from eds to some other backend too
c) in evo patch, taking the pattern of your changes, not all related code has
   been changed. (I had line numbers, but it gone) :(

Feel free to commit to trunk after branch for 2.26.0, but please try to look into those (vaguely described) things above. Thanks.
Comment 5 Chenthill P 2009-03-19 05:07:47 UTC
For
a) Since we don have a viewer/editor as a separate entities, the users who try to view the contents of the appointment may feel bad if they see a dialog coming up. So i avoided that to ask the users what to edit at the end.
b) Yes, this code remains in some backends and it would be better to handle in evo code. Have slightly modified it. The code at the backends needs to be removed.
c) I covered up editing through compEditor, day view and week view. Anything else missing?
Comment 6 Milan Crha 2009-03-24 12:36:22 UTC
ad a) I see, though for editing I believe it is better to ask before, instead of trying to recover master object and propagate some particular changes to it instead of working with the master instance since the beginning. I really saw this as a good idea.

ad c) I searched for calls of recur_component_dialog and the way you modified functions above and below it, and most of them follow the pattern, except of:
calendar/gui/e-cal-model-calendar.c:366:
calendar/gui/dialogs/comp-editor.c:1911:

Comment 7 Milan Crha 2009-04-27 16:22:34 UTC
Chen, this seems to be committed in sources already. Is it?
Comment 8 Chenthill P 2009-04-28 10:15:48 UTC
Oh sorry. Changing the status.
Comment 9 Sebastien Bacher 2009-05-14 15:04:05 UTC
the change fixes recurrent event editing mostly as described on bug #580724 but the first event is not updated correctly when changing the recurrent day ...
Comment 10 Tobias Mueller 2009-05-27 22:36:51 UTC
Hm. So do we keep this bug open as there seem to be issues in comment #6 or do we close it?
Comment 11 Chenthill P 2009-05-28 06:41:18 UTC
Oh this can be closed. Closing it. Should have done it before once Milan pointed in irc.