Re: [Postfixadmin-devel] Bug in v3.0 vacation module

[David G. <da...@co...>]

Hi -

Thanks - applied in changeset 1883

David.

On 19/12/2016 19:40, Ullrich von Bassewitz wrote:
>
> Good evening!
>
> I wasn't able to open a ticket so here is a small diff that fixes a problem
> with the vacation module. It references a table column that seems to have
> existed in older versions, but does no longer in version 3. I'm using this
> package from the web site: postfixadmin-3.0.fedora.noarch.rpm
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --- VacationHandler.orig	2016-05-22 18:17:46.000000000 +0200
> +++ VacationHandler.php	2016-12-13 15:50:18.664179212 +0100
> @@ -21,7 +21,6 @@
>              'body'          => pacol(   1,          1,      0,      'text', 'pUsersVacation_body'           , ''                                , '' ),
>              'activefrom'    => pacol(   1,          1,      1,      'text', 'pUsersVacation_activefrom'     , ''                                , '' ),
>              'activeuntil'   => pacol(   1,          1,      1,      'text', 'pUsersVacation_activeuntil'    , ''                                , '' ),
> -            'cache'         => pacol(   0,          0,      0,      'text', ''                              , ''                                , '' ), # leftover from 2.2
>              'active'        => pacol(   1,          1,      1,      'bool', 'active'                        , ''                                 , 1 ),
>              'created'       => pacol(   0,          0,      1,      'ts',   'created'                       , ''                                 ),
>              'modified'      => pacol(   0,          0,      1,      'ts',   'last_modified'                 , ''                                 ),
> @@ -180,7 +179,6 @@
>              'active' => db_get_boolean(true),
>              'activefrom' => $activeFrom,
>              'activeuntil' => $activeUntil,
> -            'cache' => '',
>          );
>
>          // is there an entry in the vacaton table for the user, or do we need to insert?
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I hope it is ok to post it here. If not, please let me know.
>
> There seems to be a another problem with display of date strings in a few
> places, which I will have to investigate.
>
> Regards
>
>
>         Uz
>
>