[Cosmo-dev] recurring events in multiple collections

[Aparna Kadakia]

Randy,
What exactly do we need to test to verify the following 26 modifications
have been fixed.

I would like to include a testcase for it in the 0.7 migration test
plan.

Aparna

On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 14:45 -0700, Aparna Kadakia wrote:
> I think the fix for the 26 modifications should be included as part  
> of  Cosmo 0.7 migration. It is data loss/inconsistency in some sense.  
> Putting it off after preview is just asking for trouble. 26  
> modifications seems a relatively small number to fix right now.  
> Waiting any longer may get us in the 100s of range which we would  
> rather not.
> If it is part of 0.7 migration, we will need to add it to the  
> migration test plan to make sure we validate them as part of testing.
> 
> So, +1
> Aparna
> 
> 
> On Sep 17, 2007, at 2:08 PM, Randy Letness wrote:
> 
> > This bug:
> >
> > http://bugzilla.osafoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10209
> >
> > describes a problem where event modifications can exist in  
> > different collections than the parent item.  I've checked in a fix  
> > for this that keeps all new data in sync, but the question now is  
> > what do we do with existing data on hub?
> > Currently there are about 26 modifications that are "out-of-sync"  
> > with the parent items.  What this means is that one collection will  
> > show the modification and another won't.  What problems does this  
> > cause?  Users may see unexpected things when using cosmo ui or  
> > caldav as these modifications may show up in some collections and  
> > not others.  For example, a morse code subscribe may return one  
> > modification and an atom or caldav query may return the same  
> > modification, plus additional modifications that exist in other  
> > collections but not in the current collection.
> >
> > So should the data migration include logic to fix this?  It would  
> > involve going through all the event modifications and making sure  
> > they exist in all collections that the parent is in.  Its not  
> > trivial, but not too complicated either.  Should this be included  
> > in the 0.7 migration?  Do we live with these out-of-sync  
> > modifications?  Do we not worry about it for preview and if it  
> > becomes a problem fix it later?
> >
> > -Randy
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cosmo-dev mailing list
> > cosmo-dev at lists.osafoundation.org
> > http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/cosmo-dev
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cosmo-dev mailing list
> cosmo-dev at lists.osafoundation.org
> http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/cosmo-dev