Re: [Opensync-users] Problems adding new contacts (SE 608i, irmc<->file)

[Jason G. <ju...@lo...>]

For the benefit of others, I've made a little progress here.  I can now
add contacts that I create on my local filesystem by inventing an LUID
and placing it in the VCARD record thus: X-IRMC-LUID:00020000000C.  If I
name the file to match the LUID, then the contact gets added to my
phone.  Unfortunately my phone will not add it silently - it prompts me.

Q: Can I simply invent the LUIDs like this, or should I be following
some protocol - I'm worried it my IDs will clash with those the phone
may invent in future.

Now that I can add contacts, I'm having problems with changes to
existing ones.  If I modify a contact on the local filesystem and then
sync, the phone asks me to either:

  1) duplicate the record (e.g. phone number change)
  2) or add a new contact (e.g. surname change).  

i.e. the phone doesn't seem to be smart enough to work out that the LUID
has remained the same, so the object being 'put'ed must represent a
change to an existing contact.  Looking at the source code of the irmc
plugin, the contact is sent to the phone with an OBEX put.

Q: The IRMC plugin should implement IMRC over OBEX, right?  So how are
*modifications* communicated over OBEX - does this simply entail use of
LUIDs in the VCARD records, and in the file names?  If so, is my phone
violating a standard, or am I screwing things up by inventing LUIDs?

Thanks for any insights.

J.

On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 17:16 +1100, Jason Grant wrote:

> [opensync 0.18, multisync 0.90.18]
> 
> I'm able to transfer contacts from my SE 608i over bluetooth using a
> (irmc, file) pair.  If I *modify* the contact on the filesystem, the
> change is transmitted properly, and I see the updates on the phone.
> 
> However when I *add* a new contact, either on the phone or on the
> filesystem, the new contact doesn't appear at the other end of the
> pair, even though the output of msynctool seems to detect the
> addition, and it reports that the transfer was done (see below).
> 
> irmc should support this right now, yes?  How best to troubleshoot?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jason.
> 
> [jas@talby test]$ msynctool --sync test
> Synchronizing group "test"
> Member 2 of type file-sync just connected
> Member 1 of type irmc-sync just connected
> All clients connected or error
> Received a entry 000200000123 without data from member 2. Changetype
> ADDED
> Received a entry uid-AddressDB-8769907 with data of size 0 from member
> 2. Changetype DELETED
> Member 2 of type file-sync just sent all changes
> Received a entry 000200000123 with data of size 24 from member 2.
> Changetype ADDED
> Member 1 of type irmc-sync just sent all changes
> All clients sent changes or error
> All conflicts have been reported
> Member 2 of type file-sync committed all changes.
> Sent a entry 000200000123 of size 104 to member 1. Changetype ADDED
> Sent a entry uid-AddressDB-8769907 of size 0 to member 1. Changetype
> DELETED
> Member 1 of type irmc-sync committed all changes.
> All clients have written
> Member 2 of type file-sync just disconnected
> Member 1 of type irmc-sync just disconnected
> All clients have disconnected
> The sync was successful
>