GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 644107
Local addressbooks created without relative_uri set
Last modified: 2016-06-14 09:47:13 UTC
Moving this from a downstream bug report: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=681741 Description of problem: Contacts in evolution will disappear when moved from one address book to another address book. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 2.32.1-1 How reproducible: I've been able to reproduce the bug when importing and creating contacts. Steps to Reproduce: 1. Create an address book in evolution, and add a contact. 2. Create 2 new address books. In some cases the contact from the first address book already shows in the second. 3. Click open contact and change the 'where' value to one of the new address books. The contact appears in both new address books. 4. Move the contact from the incorrect new address book to the correct address book to make the contact disappear. Actual results: Contacts get placed in the wrong place, or outright disappear. Also, address books that have contacts in them due to this bug can not be erased. Expected results: When moved, a contact should only be present in the address book it was placed in. The 'Could not remove address book' error should not exist. Additional info: Fedora 14 release. The contacts were created and stored locally, and evolution was configured for email.
Confirming. i realized that newly created local addressbooks don't have set relative_uri, which leads to this strange behaviour.
Created attachment 182690 [details] [review] evo patch for evolution; Two parts: a) fix previously created sources with empty relative_uri b) set relative_uri on new addressbook creation A workaround was to change address book type from On This Computer to any other and then back, in which case the relative uri was updated properly. Why it isn't updated now I do not know, but I suppose it has something to do with gtk3.
Created commit 6ad4de8 in evo master (2.91.92+)
*** Bug 652632 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 660515 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 558777 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***