|
<#TitleFont>
<#DocId/>
and this in the .wod file:
DocLink: WOString {
value = objectUrlKeyUnEescaped;
// value = objectUrlKey;
}
DocId: WOString {
value = documentId;
}
Is there a possibility to just use the objectUrlKey, but without the URL
escaping?
kind regards
Sebastian
From users@opengroupware.org Wed Apr 9 15:26:36 2008
From: users@opengroupware.org (Stegbauer)
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:26:36 +0200
Subject: [OGo-Users] plan's for version 1.1.8
Message-ID: <20080409142636.186190@gmx.net>
hi ml,
are there any plan's to relaease a version 1.1.8?
to have a "fixed" version, which doesn't change every night?
or is it supposed to install each two weeks the latest nightly?
what are the correct entries in apt/sources.list, to get everything correctly?
greetings
thomas
--
GMX startet ShortView.de. Hier findest Du Leute mit Deinen Interessen!
Jetzt dabei sein: http://www.shortview.de/?mc=sv_ext_mf@gmx
From users@opengroupware.org Wed Apr 9 15:32:59 2008
From: users@opengroupware.org (Stegbauer)
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:32:59 +0200
Subject: [OGo-Users] howto ignore appointment collision check, when reschudiling
Message-ID: <20080409143259.186200@gmx.net>
hi ml,
i am running 1.1.7 on a debian etch machine.
when creating an appointment and there is a collision. i get an a warning.
but at rescheduling i get only an error:
rescheduling failed, cause there is a collision.
is there a way to let the user decide, like on creating an appointment?
greetings
thomas
--
GMX startet ShortView.de. Hier findest Du Leute mit Deinen Interessen!
Jetzt dabei sein: http://www.shortview.de/?mc=sv_ext_mf@gmx
From users@opengroupware.org Wed Apr 9 16:14:44 2008
From: users@opengroupware.org (Helge Hess)
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 17:14:44 +0200
Subject: [OGo-Users] plan's for version 1.1.8
In-Reply-To: <20080409142636.186190@gmx.net>
References: <20080409142636.186190@gmx.net>
Message-ID: <9BC77105-AFC3-4CA5-A5A6-F9B28A0D0AB0@opengroupware.org>
On 09.04.2008, at 16:26, Stegbauer wrote:
> are there any plan's to relaease a version 1.1.8?
Unless there are urgent other reasons (why don't you use 1.1.7?), I
plan to release 1.1.8 after I put my database schema additions in.
This can still take a while.
Thanks,
Helge
--
Helge Hess
http://www.helgehess.eu/
From users@opengroupware.org Wed Apr 9 16:27:37 2008
From: users@opengroupware.org (Adam Tauno Williams)
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 11:27:37 -0400
Subject: [OGo-Users] plan's for version 1.1.8
In-Reply-To: <20080409142636.186190@gmx.net>
References: <20080409142636.186190@gmx.net>
Message-ID: <1207754858.6666.2.camel@WM_ADAM1.morrison.iserv.net>
> are there any plan's to relaease a version 1.1.8?
> to have a "fixed" version, which doesn't change every night?
> or is it supposed to install each two weeks the latest nightly?
My suggestion is to just watch the ChangeBlogger, and if something
interesting/useful goes in then do a staged update. That is what we
have been doing for years. Usually that equates to an update every few
months; certainly not weeks.
> what are the correct entries in apt/sources.list, to get everything correctly?
I recommend not using repositories as they make an install
unreproducible; which is a nightmare in a DR or SLA situation.
From users@opengroupware.org Wed Apr 9 16:32:58 2008
From: users@opengroupware.org (Adam Tauno Williams)
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 11:32:58 -0400
Subject: [OGo-Users] howto ignore appointment collision check, when
reschudiling
In-Reply-To: <20080409143259.186200@gmx.net>
References: <20080409143259.186200@gmx.net>
Message-ID: <1207755178.6666.8.camel@WM_ADAM1.morrison.iserv.net>
> i am running 1.1.7 on a debian etch machine.
> when creating an appointment and there is a collision. i get an a warning.
> but at rescheduling i get only an error:
> rescheduling failed, cause there is a collision.
> is there a way to let the user decide, like on creating an appointment?
I think this is an existing feature.
In the WebUI appointment editor there is "Conflicts: <*> detect < >
allow < > always ignore"
If creating appointments via the zOGI API set the isConflictDisabled
attribute to a value of 1 to permanently ignore conflicts for an
appointment.
From users@opengroupware.org Wed Apr 9 18:15:11 2008
From: users@opengroupware.org (Stegbauer)
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 19:15:11 +0200
Subject: [OGo-Users] howto ignore appointment collision check, when
reschudiling
In-Reply-To: <1207755178.6666.8.camel@WM_ADAM1.morrison.iserv.net>
References: <20080409143259.186200@gmx.net>
<1207755178.6666.8.camel@WM_ADAM1.morrison.iserv.net>
Message-ID: <20080409171511.13240@gmx.net>
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 11:32:58 -0400
> Von: Adam Tauno Williams
> An: users@opengroupware.org
> Betreff: Re: [OGo-Users] howto ignore appointment collision check, when reschudiling
> > i am running 1.1.7 on a debian etch machine.
> > when creating an appointment and there is a collision. i get an a
> warning.
> > but at rescheduling i get only an error:
> > rescheduling failed, cause there is a collision.
> > is there a way to let the user decide, like on creating an appointment?
>
> I think this is an existing feature.
what do you mean with "existing feature"
> In the WebUI appointment editor there is "Conflicts: <*> detect < >
> allow < > always ignore"
>
> If creating appointments via the zOGI API set the isConflictDisabled
> attribute to a value of 1 to permanently ignore conflicts for an
> appointment.
ok, if i set one appointment
to conflict's "allowed"
a rescheduling is possible.
is there a way to define a appointment per default "conflict allowed"
greetings
thomas
--
Psst! Geheimtipp: Online Games kostenlos spielen bei den GMX Free Games!
http://games.entertainment.gmx.net/de/entertainment/games/free
From users@opengroupware.org Wed Apr 9 18:55:20 2008
From: users@opengroupware.org (Helge Hess)
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 19:55:20 +0200
Subject: [OGo-Users] howto ignore appointment collision check, when reschudiling
In-Reply-To: <20080409171511.13240@gmx.net>
References: <20080409143259.186200@gmx.net> <1207755178.6666.8.camel@WM_ADAM1.morrison.iserv.net> <20080409171511.13240@gmx.net>
Message-ID: <72A34FC7-1DB2-4712-9117-0E2CE6087A37@opengroupware.org>
On 09.04.2008, at 19:15, Stegbauer wrote:
>> In the WebUI appointment editor there is "Conflicts: <*> detect < >
>> allow < > always ignore"
>>
>> If creating appointments via the zOGI API set the isConflictDisabled
>> attribute to a value of 1 to permanently ignore conflicts for an
>> appointment.
>
> ok, if i set one appointment
> to conflict's "allowed"
> a rescheduling is possible.
>
> is there a way to define a appointment per default "conflict allowed"
Its hard to follow you. Isn't 'Conflicts: always ignore' what you
want? If not, why not?
Helge
--
Helge Hess
http://www.helgehess.eu/
From users@opengroupware.org Wed Apr 9 19:06:36 2008
From: users@opengroupware.org (Adam Tauno Williams)
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:06:36 -0400
Subject: [OGo-Users] howto ignore appointment collision check, when
reschudiling
In-Reply-To: <20080409171511.13240@gmx.net>
References: <20080409143259.186200@gmx.net>
<1207755178.6666.8.camel@WM_ADAM1.morrison.iserv.net>
<20080409171511.13240@gmx.net>
Message-ID: <1207764396.6666.28.camel@WM_ADAM1.morrison.iserv.net>
> > > i am running 1.1.7 on a debian etch machine.
> > > when creating an appointment and there is a collision. i get an a
> > warning.
> > > but at rescheduling i get only an error:
> > > rescheduling failed, cause there is a collision.
> > > is there a way to let the user decide, like on creating an appointment?
> > I think this is an existing feature.
> what do you mean with "existing feature"
> > In the WebUI appointment editor there is "Conflicts: <*> detect < >
> > allow < > always ignore"
> > If creating appointments via the zOGI API set the isConflictDisabled
> > attribute to a value of 1 to permanently ignore conflicts for an
> > appointment.
> ok, if i set one appointment
> to conflict's "allowed"
> a rescheduling is possible.
Yep.
> is there a way to define a appointment per default "conflict allowed"
No, I don't think so; and that would in-effect break scheduling. It
would, IMO, be a bug, not a feature. If you want to add participants
and [for some specific reason] not have them conflict you should enable
roles and add the participants as a info-only (informational)
participants. Informational participation will not raise conflicts.
*BUT* most of the time I've been asked this it is the result of
wrong-headed thinking - adding people as participants in order to force
an event [that isn't theirs] to appear on the calendar of someone else.
That is "PIM-think" which is the sworn enemy of efficient collaboration
everywhere. The appropriate solution for one person monitoring another
person's appointments is for the *viewer* to add that team/contact to
their panel and use the drill-down calendar view. The panel is
remembered across sessions in order to make this convenient.
From users@opengroupware.org Thu Apr 10 11:38:31 2008
From: users@opengroupware.org (Sebastian Reitenbach)
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:38:31 +0200
Subject: [OGo-Users] sharing contact attributes only between given users
Message-ID: <20080410103832.1C978D36B5@smtp.l00-bugdead-prods.de>
Hi,
I doubt it is possible, so just wanted to make sure:
I know I can set SkyPersonPublicExtendedAttributes and
SkyPersonPrivateExtendedAttributes (or however they are called). The public
attributes are seen by all people, in case the contacts record is not
private. And for the Private attributes only the person that creates
contents in them, can see the contents? Is that right so far?
My usecase is, a secretary or travel agent or whatever, want to save
information for the sales people in ogo, in extended fields appended to the
ogo account. The contents of these fields shall only be visible by a group
of secretaries, and the account owner in question, because there could be
private data in it.
I hope the explanation above is understandable, so is that possible in OGo?
kind regards
Sebastian
From users@opengroupware.org Thu Apr 10 12:10:37 2008
From: users@opengroupware.org (Helge Hess)
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:10:37 +0200
Subject: [OGo-Users] sharing contact attributes only between given users
In-Reply-To: <20080410103832.1C978D36B5@smtp.l00-bugdead-prods.de>
References: <20080410103832.1C978D36B5@smtp.l00-bugdead-prods.de>
Message-ID: <27E66149-E17C-4C8D-ABEC-F7DD640CFE11@opengroupware.org>
On 10.04.2008, at 12:38, Sebastian Reitenbach wrote:
> I hope the explanation above is understandable, so is that possible
> in OGo?
No, not yet. Actually the Java port does support fieldsets. We might
want to backport them to the mainline, might be well worth the effort.
Though its quite a bit of work to capture all codepathes.
Basically it introduces additional permission flags:
---snip---
*
* Permissions
*
* r - all details can be shown (lbpiPM)
* w - contact can be edited
*
*
*
* Data Read Restriction
*
* l - list
* b - business contact data (phone/address)
* p - private contact data (phone/address)
* i - IM data
* P - private data like birthday etc
* M - mobile number
* s - may send private messages
* c - may connect with me in the system?
*
---snap---
Technically we could map the codes to arbitrary fields removals.
Greets,
Helge
--
Helge Hess
http://www.helgehess.eu/
From users@opengroupware.org Thu Apr 10 12:29:49 2008
From: users@opengroupware.org (Sebastian Reitenbach)
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:29:49 +0200
Subject: [OGo-Users] sharing contact attributes only between given users
Message-ID: <20080410112949.EF09AD36BA@smtp.l00-bugdead-prods.de>
users@opengroupware.org wrote:
> On 10.04.2008, at 12:38, Sebastian Reitenbach wrote:
> > I hope the explanation above is understandable, so is that possible
> > in OGo?
>
>
> No, not yet. Actually the Java port does support fieldsets. We might
ok, then my assumptions were right. Interesting, that the java port has it.
> want to backport them to the mainline, might be well worth the effort.
I'd vote for that, yes ;)
> Though its quite a bit of work to capture all codepathes.
Yes, I can understand.
>
> Basically it introduces additional permission flags:
> ---snip---
> *
> * Permissions
> *
> * r - all details can be shown (lbpiPM)
> * w - contact can be edited
> *
> *
> *
> * Data Read Restriction
> *
> * l - list
> * b - business contact data (phone/address)
> * p - private contact data (phone/address)
> * i - IM data
> * P - private data like birthday etc
> * M - mobile number
> * s - may send private messages
> * c - may connect with me in the system?
> *
> ---snap---
> Technically we could map the codes to arbitrary fields removals.
I don't really get the meaning of the last sentence.
However, does the java port work on the same database layout as OGo does
now? Or are the changes to the database schema, that your are planning maybe
some enhancements from the ogo java port?
thanks
Sebastian
From users@opengroupware.org Thu Apr 10 12:58:43 2008
From: users@opengroupware.org (Helge Hess)
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:58:43 +0200
Subject: [OGo-Users] sharing contact attributes only between given users
In-Reply-To: <20080410112949.EF09AD36BA@smtp.l00-bugdead-prods.de>
References: <20080410112949.EF09AD36BA@smtp.l00-bugdead-prods.de>
Message-ID: <0EA245DF-7544-40D0-A863-1B4A987BDD47@opengroupware.org>
On 10.04.2008, at 13:29, Sebastian Reitenbach wrote:
>> Technically we could map the codes to arbitrary fields removals.
> I don't really get the meaning of the last sentence.
What the flags do is clear out field the user has no access to. Eg if
he does not have the 'M' permission, we would reset the
'03_tel_mobile' field to nil after the fetch.
Which fields require which permissions could be a default, eg:
{
M = ( 03_tel_mobile, other-attr );
P = ( 01_tel, 10_fax );
}
etc.
> However, does the java port work on the same database layout as OGo
> does
> now?
Of course.
> Or are the changes to the database schema, that your are planning
> maybe
> some enhancements from the ogo java port?
There are a few schema enhancements, they don't hurt the ObjC part.
The mentioned permission stuff does not require any schema changes at
all.
Helge
--
Helge Hess
http://www.helgehess.eu/
From users@opengroupware.org Thu Apr 10 14:35:57 2008
From: users@opengroupware.org (Adam Tauno Williams)
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 09:35:57 -0400
Subject: [OGo-Users] sharing contact attributes only between given users
In-Reply-To: <0EA245DF-7544-40D0-A863-1B4A987BDD47@opengroupware.org>
References: <20080410112949.EF09AD36BA@smtp.l00-bugdead-prods.de>
<0EA245DF-7544-40D0-A863-1B4A987BDD47@opengroupware.org>
Message-ID: <1207834557.5054.7.camel@WM_ADAM1.morrison.iserv.net>
> >> Technically we could map the codes to arbitrary fields removals.
> > I don't really get the meaning of the last sentence.
> What the flags do is clear out field the user has no access to. Eg if
> he does not have the 'M' permission, we would reset the
> '03_tel_mobile' field to nil after the fetch.
Interesting. And I assume on a write/put those fields are dropped out
as well?
For some regulatory compliance [that mandates data hiding] we've had to
implement some kludges to get similar behavior. We use an encrypted
blob in an object property, and if the user has access to the key the
blob decrypts for display - but they aren't accessing the data via
WebUI. This makes the data encrypted on-disk and thus in-backup, the
later is also required for compliance. I suppose there is no way to
support such a thing in the mainline - the whole key acquisition issue.
> Which fields require which permissions could be a default, eg:
> {
> M = ( 03_tel_mobile, other-attr );
> P = ( 01_tel, 10_fax );
> }
> etc
> > However, does the java port work on the same database layout as OGo
> > does now?
> Of course.
> > Or are the changes to the database schema, that your are planning
> > maybe some enhancements from the ogo java port?
> There are a few schema enhancements, they don't hurt the ObjC part.
> The mentioned permission stuff does not require any schema changes at
> all.
From users@opengroupware.org Thu Apr 10 15:05:55 2008
From: users@opengroupware.org (Sebastian Reitenbach)
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:05:55 +0200
Subject: [OGo-Users] sharing contact attributes only between given users
Message-ID: <20080410140556.656C5D3734@smtp.l00-bugdead-prods.de>
users@opengroupware.org wrote:
> On 10.04.2008, at 13:29, Sebastian Reitenbach wrote:
> >> Technically we could map the codes to arbitrary fields removals.
> > I don't really get the meaning of the last sentence.
>
> What the flags do is clear out field the user has no access to. Eg if
> he does not have the 'M' permission, we would reset the
> '03_tel_mobile' field to nil after the fetch.
>
> Which fields require which permissions could be a default, eg:
> {
> M = ( 03_tel_mobile, other-attr );
> P = ( 01_tel, 10_fax );
> }
> etc.
>
ah, now I got it, thanks.
> > However, does the java port work on the same database layout as OGo
> > does
> > now?
>
> Of course.
great ;)
>
> > Or are the changes to the database schema, that your are planning
> > maybe
> > some enhancements from the ogo java port?
>
> There are a few schema enhancements, they don't hurt the ObjC part.
> The mentioned permission stuff does not require any schema changes at
> all.
also good.
thanks for explaining.
Sebastian
From users@opengroupware.org Thu Apr 10 15:35:44 2008
From: users@opengroupware.org (Helge Hess)
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:35:44 +0200
Subject: [OGo-Users] sharing contact attributes only between given users
In-Reply-To: <1207834557.5054.7.camel@WM_ADAM1.morrison.iserv.net>
References: <20080410112949.EF09AD36BA@smtp.l00-bugdead-prods.de> <0EA245DF-7544-40D0-A863-1B4A987BDD47@opengroupware.org> <1207834557.5054.7.camel@WM_ADAM1.morrison.iserv.net>
Message-ID: <26402DAB-DAB4-45FB-9C66-37C07CC1BA16@opengroupware.org>
On 10.04.2008, at 15:35, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
>>>> Technically we could map the codes to arbitrary fields removals.
>>> I don't really get the meaning of the last sentence.
>> What the flags do is clear out field the user has no access to. Eg if
>> he does not have the 'M' permission, we would reset the
>> '03_tel_mobile' field to nil after the fetch.
>
> Interesting. And I assume on a write/put those fields are dropped out
> as well?
There is only one write permission, 'w'. Either you have it, or you
don't. Maybe it makes sense to combine it with the other flags, don't
know. I guess not.
> For some regulatory compliance [that mandates data hiding] we've had
> to
> implement some kludges to get similar behavior. We use an encrypted
> blob in an object property, and if the user has access to the key the
> blob decrypts for display - but they aren't accessing the data via
> WebUI. This makes the data encrypted on-disk and thus in-backup, the
> later is also required for compliance. I suppose there is no way to
> support such a thing in the mainline - the whole key acquisition
> issue.
From a technical PoV storing encrypted values would not be too hard.
Don't know, not a priority right now, but sounds kinda useful :-)
Helge
--
Helge Hess
http://www.helgehess.eu/
From users@opengroupware.org Thu Apr 10 15:53:29 2008
From: users@opengroupware.org (Adam Tauno Williams)
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:53:29 -0400
Subject: [OGo-Users] sharing contact attributes only between given users
In-Reply-To: <26402DAB-DAB4-45FB-9C66-37C07CC1BA16@opengroupware.org>
References: <20080410112949.EF09AD36BA@smtp.l00-bugdead-prods.de>
<0EA245DF-7544-40D0-A863-1B4A987BDD47@opengroupware.org>
<1207834557.5054.7.camel@WM_ADAM1.morrison.iserv.net>
<26402DAB-DAB4-45FB-9C66-37C07CC1BA16@opengroupware.org>
Message-ID: <1207839209.5054.13.camel@WM_ADAM1.morrison.iserv.net>
> >>>> Technically we could map the codes to arbitrary fields removals.
> >>> I don't really get the meaning of the last sentence.
> >> What the flags do is clear out field the user has no access to. Eg if
> >> he does not have the 'M' permission, we would reset the
> >> '03_tel_mobile' field to nil after the fetch.
> > Interesting. And I assume on a write/put those fields are dropped out
> > as well?
> There is only one write permission, 'w'. Either you have it, or you
> don't. Maybe it makes sense to combine it with the other flags, don't
> know. I guess not.
Just curious if a clever user could manage to overwrite/change fields
that aren't visible.
> > For some regulatory compliance [that mandates data hiding] we've had
> > to
> > implement some kludges to get similar behavior. We use an encrypted
> > blob in an object property, and if the user has access to the key the
> > blob decrypts for display - but they aren't accessing the data via
> > WebUI. This makes the data encrypted on-disk and thus in-backup, the
> > later is also required for compliance. I suppose there is no way to
> > support such a thing in the mainline - the whole key acquisition
> > issue.
> From a technical PoV storing encrypted values would not be too hard.
> Don't know, not a priority right now, but sounds kinda useful :-)
For us it is required, but it is easy enough to implement on the
client/consumer side.
From users@opengroupware.org Thu Apr 10 17:32:59 2008
From: users@opengroupware.org (Helge Hess)
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:32:59 +0200
Subject: [OGo-Users] sharing contact attributes only between given users
In-Reply-To: <1207839209.5054.13.camel@WM_ADAM1.morrison.iserv.net>
References: <20080410112949.EF09AD36BA@smtp.l00-bugdead-prods.de> <0EA245DF-7544-40D0-A863-1B4A987BDD47@opengroupware.org> <1207834557.5054.7.camel@WM_ADAM1.morrison.iserv.net> <26402DAB-DAB4-45FB-9C66-37C07CC1BA16@opengroupware.org> <1207839209.5054.13.camel@WM_ADAM1.morrison.iserv.net>
Message-ID: <5D367172-8438-49AE-9C2A-86DB40D1DA63@opengroupware.org>
On 10.04.2008, at 16:53, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
> Just curious if a clever user could manage to overwrite/change fields
> that aren't visible.
No, he needs to have the 'w' permission to write anything. And
currently 'w' implies full read ('r'). So this is not a problem.
I guess it could be useful to allow the user to edit just some data.
We'll see.
Greets,
Helge
--
Helge Hess
http://www.helgehess.eu/
From users@opengroupware.org Thu Apr 10 18:17:22 2008
From: users@opengroupware.org (Stegbauer)
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:17:22 +0200
Subject: [OGo-Users] howto ignore appointment collision check, when
reschudiling
In-Reply-To: <72A34FC7-1DB2-4712-9117-0E2CE6087A37@opengroupware.org>
References: <20080409143259.186200@gmx.net>
<1207755178.6666.8.camel@WM_ADAM1.morrison.iserv.net>
<20080409171511.13240@gmx.net>
<72A34FC7-1DB2-4712-9117-0E2CE6087A37@opengroupware.org>
Message-ID: <20080410171722.186190@gmx.net>
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 19:55:20 +0200
> Von: Helge Hess
> An: users@opengroupware.org
> Betreff: Re: [OGo-Users] howto ignore appointment collision check, when reschudiling
> >
> > ok, if i set one appointment
> > to conflict's "allowed"
> > a rescheduling is possible.
> >
> > is there a way to define a appointment per default "conflict allowed"
>
> Its hard to follow you. Isn't 'Conflicts: always ignore' what you
> want? If not, why not?
hi helge,
sorry, for writing too short.
'Conflicts: always ignore' is "nearly" what i - better the user's - want.
the point is the following:
by default conflict is at recognize (the first radiobutton). if a user's tries to reschedule, it get an error, cause a conflict is detected, he/she can press ok (nothing changed to appointment), modify the appointment and reschedule again. not very userfriendly.
so maybe i have modify my question:
how is it possible to get a "question-page" at reschudilng, like on creating an appointment, when a conflict is detected, where the user can decide how to proceed.
imho this would be the best behavior, as setting "conflicts: ignore" per default whould break, as adam told before.
greetings
thomas
--
Psst! Geheimtipp: Online Games kostenlos spielen bei den GMX Free Games!
http://games.entertainment.gmx.net/de/entertainment/games/free
From users@opengroupware.org Wed Apr 16 11:25:31 2008
From: users@opengroupware.org (=?UTF-8?q?Albrecht_Dre=C3=9F?=)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:25:31 +0200
Subject: [OGo-Users] participants names missing in web ui
Message-ID: <1208341531l.22596l.1l@pc104141.koeln.nktcables.com>
Hi all,
I'm running a self-compiled opengroupware.org-1.1.7-close-r1987.tar.gz =20
on x86_64 Ubuntu 7.10.
Apparently one user managed to create an appointment which makes some =20
participants names disappear in web the web ui... When I hide the =20
appointment (e.g. by selecting a different user/team), all names appear =20
again. This affects the whole display (week or day overview). Showing =20
the appointment details, all participants are listed properly (as they =20
are in Mozilla Lightning).
I don't want to post screenshots for privacy reasons on the list, but =20
but could do it off-list. Any idea about the reason? Might this be a =20
broken data base? Where should I look with psql?
Thanks in advance,
Albrecht.
From users@opengroupware.org Wed Apr 16 12:02:55 2008
From: users@opengroupware.org (Adam Tauno Williams)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 07:02:55 -0400
Subject: [OGo-Users] participants names missing in web ui
In-Reply-To: <1208341531l.22596l.1l@pc104141.koeln.nktcables.com>
References: <1208341531l.22596l.1l@pc104141.koeln.nktcables.com>
Message-ID: <1208343775.8192.17.camel@aleph>
> I'm running a self-compiled opengroupware.org-1.1.7-close-r1987.tar.gz
> on x86_64 Ubuntu 7.10.
> Apparently one user managed to create an appointment which makes some
> participants names disappear in web the web ui... When I hide the
> appointment (e.g. by selecting a different user/team), all names appear
> again. This affects the whole display (week or day overview). Showing
> the appointment details, all participants are listed properly (as they
> are in Mozilla Lightning).
I'd check the ogo-webui-err-1.1.log file when you bring up the broken
view and see if you get anything interesting.
> I don't want to post screenshots for privacy reasons on the list, but
> but could do it off-list. Any idea about the reason? Might this be a
> broken data base? Where should I look with psql?
You can enable SQL logging and then run the commands executed by the app
manually to see what you get; enabling SQL logging is covered in
WMOGAG.
From users@opengroupware.org Wed Apr 16 12:43:44 2008
From: users@opengroupware.org (=?UTF-8?q?Albrecht_Dre=C3=9F?=)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:43:44 +0200
Subject: [OGo-Users] participants names missing in web ui
In-Reply-To: <1208343775.8192.17.camel@aleph> (from adam@morrison-ind.com on
Wed Apr 16 13:02:55 2008)
References: <1208341531l.22596l.1l@pc104141.koeln.nktcables.com>
<1208343775.8192.17.camel@aleph>
Message-ID: <1208346224l.22596l.2l@pc104141.koeln.nktcables.com>
Am 16.04.2008 13:02:55 schrieb(en) Adam Tauno Williams:
> I'd check the ogo-webui-err-1.1.log file when you bring up the broken =20
> view and see if you get anything interesting.
Nothing - just a few messages about reading the IMAP inbox status.
> You can enable SQL logging and then run the commands executed by the =20
> app manually to see what you get; enabling SQL logging is covered in =20
> WMOGAG.
Thanks for that hint, I'll try that (and probably get back to you... ;-)
Thanks, Albrecht.
From users@opengroupware.org Thu Apr 17 10:01:57 2008
From: users@opengroupware.org (Sebastian Reitenbach)
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:01:57 +0200
Subject: [OGo-Users] formletter question
Message-ID: <20080417090200.1A216D4B4F@smtp.l00-bugdead-prods.de>
Hi all,
also after taking a look here:
http://docs.opengroupware.org/Members/helge/Configurations/Formletters/view?searchterm=formletter
I still have some questions regarding the formletters in ogo:
1. does the formletter_kinds Default define the kinds of formletters for
both, Enterprises and Contacts?
2. In case, the answer to 1. is yes, does LSPersonFormLetter and
LSEnterpriseFormLetter need to provide all formletter kinds, or would a
subset be sufficient?
3. what is the usage of formletter_kind?
4. which of the formletter kinds is used, when I select formletter in the
advanced search? Maybe the one defined with formletter_kind?
5. do I can use any extended attribute in the formletter definition, or are
there any restrictions?
thanks
Sebastian
From users@opengroupware.org Mon Apr 21 16:20:30 2008
From: users@opengroupware.org (Ernersto Revilla)
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 17:20:30 +0200
Subject: [OGo-Users] Migrate calendar data from ogo to sogo
Message-ID: <1208791230.7790.50.camel@ganso>
Hi.
I'm trying to import calendar data from ogo to sogo.
The problems I found:
* SOGo: don't know how to import
* Thunderbird/Lightning 0.7:
- error "empty " when importing .ics to caldav remote
calendar. don't know where or why. File imports correctly when using a
local calendar.
- copy from local to remote calendar. you can't copy and paste, or
drag-drop calendar events.
* cadaver: returns error when uploading .ics, 404, due to international
chars (utf8 = on)
* nautilus with gnome-vfs-extra: error when opening Calendar
collection.
Regards.
Erny
From users@opengroupware.org Mon Apr 21 17:37:11 2008
From: users@opengroupware.org (Adam Tauno Williams)
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 12:37:11 -0400
Subject: [OGo-Users] Migrate calendar data from ogo to sogo
In-Reply-To: <1208791230.7790.50.camel@ganso>
References: <1208791230.7790.50.camel@ganso>
Message-ID: <1208795831.4406.0.camel@laptop02.whitemice.org>
> I'm trying to import calendar data from ogo to sogo.
> The problems I found:
> * SOGo: don't know how to import
> * Thunderbird/Lightning 0.7:
> - error "empty " when importing .ics to caldav remote
> calendar. don't know where or why. File imports correctly when using a
> local calendar.
Since the problem is with uploading data to SOGo it is likely the SOGo list will be a better place.
From users@opengroupware.org Tue Apr 22 09:56:24 2008
From: users@opengroupware.org (Kianha x)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:56:24 +0200
Subject: [OGo-Users] URLs Accessible from ZideStore
In-Reply-To: <1207313103.4810.16.camel@WM_ADAM1.morrison.iserv.net>
References: <785619350804020846v598358c2o62b8d743d8c7de3e@mail.gmail.com>
<1207159483.5657.16.camel@WM_ADAM1.morrison.iserv.net>
<785619350804030340w2b47eaedk7d31760e8349ca1f@mail.gmail.com>
<785619350804040459k40c2c10dtae234427913c852c@mail.gmail.com>
<1207313103.4810.16.camel@WM_ADAM1.morrison.iserv.net>
Message-ID: <785619350804220156n4a21ae3dgef09fd05f8c9ab32@mail.gmail.com>
------=_Part_18794_8058450.1208854584428
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Hi,
I have obtained with webdav the appointments and contacts with the next
urls:
-Appointments: http://myserver/zidestore/dav/myuser/Calendar
-Contacts: http://myserver/zidestore/dav/myuser/public/Contacts: This
way, I have obtained the contacts
who aren't accounts. And with this url:
http://myserver/zidestore/dav/myuser/public/Accounts, I have obtained
the contacts who are
accounts. Is it correct to obtain the contacts of this way? using the
Contacts folder and the Accounts
folder?
But I can't obtain the tasks in the Task folder (
http://myserver/zidestore/dav/myuser/Tasks) I am using the webdav client
BitKinex, and in the Task folder there isn't tasks however in the
OpengGroupware yes.Can I access the tasks with webdav?
Thanks,
Regards,
------=_Part_18794_8058450.1208854584428
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
|