[OGo-Users] Conflict Detection (Bug?)

[Helge Hess]

On 19.09.2007, at 21:05, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
> I have user A who is member of team X.
>
> I create an appointment with a participant of X and a role of
> NON-PARTICIPANT.
>
> I create an overlapping appointment with a participant of A and a role
> of REQ-PARTICIPANT.
>
> I see a conflict.
>
> Is this a bug?  My understanding was that a role of NON-PARTICIPANT
> would suppress conflict.

Hm. Possibly. Actually I'm not sure whether groups work with those  
extended status codes. (you usually flatten groups when you want to  
use the extended stuff because the 'confirm' stuff only makes sense  
with individual participants, but of course NON-PARTICIPANT seems  
reasonable).


> The same is true if I create an appointment with A:NON-PARTICIPANT and
> another overlapping appointment with A:REQ-PARTICIPANT.  The
> NON-PARTICIPANT appointment sees a conflict with the REQ-PARTICIPANT
> appointment but the REQ-PARTICIPANT does not see a conflict with the
> NON-PARTICIPANT appointment.
>
> Shouldn't conflicts always appear from both sides?

This is a good question :-) For REQ vs OPT vs NON-PART - probably.  
But for status values, I'm not sure - eg if a value is tentative it  
might depend which direction you check.

> My understanding of conflicts is from the map:
> Conflict-Map as implemented in the conflicts command:
>               CHAIR REQ-PART OPT-PART NON-PART <NULL>
> NEEDS-ACTION  yes   yes      might    no       yes
> <NULL>        yes   yes      might    no       yes
> ACCEPTED      yes   yes      yes      no       yes
> DECLINED      no    no       no       no       no
> TENTATIVE     yes   yes      yes      no       yes
> DELEGATED     no    no       no       no       no

Puh. This is 3 year old code :-)

The SQL pattern seems to be this one:
     pattern =
       @"(%A > %@) AND (%A < %@) "
       @"AND (%A = 0 OR %A IS NULL) "
       @"AND (%A = 0 OR %A IS NULL) "
       @"AND ((%A IN (%@)) AND "
       // conflict for NEED-INFO CHAIR and REQ-PART events and then  
for all
       // ACCEPTED/TENTATIVE events (unless used with a non-part)
       // args: stat, stat, role, role, role, stat, stat, role
       // TODO: move to an own qualifier which is static and conjoined?
       @"(((%A IS NULL OR %A = 'NEEDS-ACTION') AND "
       @"  (%A = 'CHAIR' OR %A = 'REQ-PARTICIPANT' OR %A IS NULL)) "
       @" OR "
       @" ((%A = 'ACCEPTED' OR %A = 'TENTATIVE') AND "
       @"  (NOT %A = 'NON-PARTICIPANT')))"
       @")"
       ;

And it seems to use directed joins. Not sure, probably a review of  
all that stuff would make sense.

Greets,
   Helge
-- 
Helge Hess
http://www.helgehess.eu/