Summary | Clean up recurrence exception edge cases |
Queue | Kronolith |
Queue Version | HEAD |
Type | Bug |
State | Resolved |
Priority | 1. Low |
Owners | jan (at) horde (dot) org |
Requester | chuck (at) horde (dot) org |
Created | 11/15/2008 (6077 days ago) |
Due | |
Updated | 01/13/2010 (5653 days ago) |
Assigned | |
Resolved | 03/30/2009 (5942 days ago) |
Github Issue Link | |
Github Pull Request | |
Milestone | |
Patch | No |
Save recurrence exceptions when copying events (
Bug #7689).http://git.horde.org/diff.php/kronolith/docs/CHANGES?rt=horde-git&r1=c85b6ca17876adf9f1e9cf16b47d98e4430555dc&r2=068a3f6ef22539bea51b03bbb444df5f0e155120
http://git.horde.org/diff.php/kronolith/lib/Event.php?rt=horde-git&r1=962a7daf1ca7fd17f67a5239d2fd99713a53b7b7&r2=068a3f6ef22539bea51b03bbb444df5f0e155120
http://git.horde.org/diff.php/kronolith/templates/edit/edit.inc?rt=horde-git&r1=716a86a26781742f8afbf74f74b68ec5954b4e01&r2=068a3f6ef22539bea51b03bbb444df5f0e155120
http://cvs.horde.org/diff.php/kronolith/docs/CHANGES?rt=horde&r1=1.165.2.255&r2=1.165.2.256&ty=u
http://cvs.horde.org/diff.php/kronolith/lib/Driver.php?rt=horde&r1=1.116.2.80&r2=1.116.2.81&ty=u
http://cvs.horde.org/diff.php/kronolith/templates/edit/edit.inc?rt=horde&r1=1.111.4.14&r2=1.111.4.15&ty=u
Assigned to Jan Schneider
Taken from
State ⇒ Resolved
I tend to reject 1. because, as you already mentioned, it could be
considered data loss. And it doesn't hurt too much to carry this
information around.
Priority ⇒ 1. Low
Patch ⇒ No
Milestone ⇒
Assigned to
Queue ⇒ Kronolith
Summary ⇒ Clean up recurrence exception edge cases
Type ⇒ Bug
State ⇒ Assigned
is used. Also, changing the recur_end_date (or the start date) of a
recurring event does not trim exceptions outside the new range.
I can see situations where trimming exceptions would result in what
would be considered data loss, but I think the consistent thing to do
would be:
1. when saving a recurring event, delete recurrence exceptions outside
the event's range
2. when saving a recurring event As New, copy over recurrences inside
the new range.
I think 2. is a must; I could be convinced to drop 1.