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 773934 - Can not modify WebDAV contacts when not online, even though "copy book content locally for offline operations" is ticked
Can not modify WebDAV contacts when not online, even though "copy book conten...
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 508501
Product: evolution
Classification: Applications
Component: Contacts
3.22.x (obsolete)
Other Linux
: Normal enhancement
: ---
Assigned To: evolution-addressbook-maintainers
Evolution QA team
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2016-11-04 08:43 UTC by Christian Gogolin
Modified: 2016-11-07 10:34 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---



Description Christian Gogolin 2016-11-04 08:43:28 UTC
When I try to edit a contact while not connected to the WebDAV server (due to network outage or work offline mode) evolution displays the following error dialog when I try to modify a contact: 

Error modifying contact

Modify contact failed with HTTP status 7 (Could not connect: Socket I/O timed out)

When "copy book content locally for offline operations" is ticked such modification should be saved to the local phone book and then synced when a connection is reestablished.
Comment 1 Milan Crha 2016-11-07 08:25:54 UTC
Thanks for a bug report. Even bug #508501 talks specifically about calendar and Google, the changes there will cover also address books, thus I mark this as a duplicate of it.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 508501 ***
Comment 2 Christian Gogolin 2016-11-07 09:49:35 UTC
Ok, fine, but bug #508501 is rather old (2008!), misleading (as ist only talks about Google calendar) and is filed against an ancient version, namely 3.4.x (obsolete).

Moreover, as far as I can see, there has never really been much activity to solve this issue.

If you don't intend to fix this (which would be rather odd) then why not just mark it wontfix, and if you still intent to fix this, wouldn't it then at least make senes to update the old report so that someone might at some point actually start looking into it?
Comment 3 Milan Crha 2016-11-07 10:34:08 UTC
The bug status can mean different thing for different people. For me the version and so on just means when the bug was filled. There is no need to change the version each 6 months, everyone has better things to do than spam reporters with such changes (multiply by the number of filled bugs and the number of Products in the bugzilla).

There was no activity in the bugzilla, but there was some between developers.

The task as such is not trivial, and there rose issues with higher priority (as it always does), thus the issue lives with us.

If you want to help to solve it, then patches are welcome.

General comment like "me too" are somewhat spam and unneeded. Adding comments "It's still broken in 3.22.1" is a similar to "me too" comment. Would it be fixed, the bug is closed.

Contrary, comments like "this is fixed in x.y.z" are useful, because sometimes the duplicates are not recognized soon enough, thus some old bugs can be truly obsolete/fixed due to fixes in newer bugs.

Anyway, that's just my understanding of the work flow with bugzilla. Different work flow can work better for other folks.