[Tickets #10903] Re: IMP don't use correcty the selected address books list after logout and new login

bugs at horde.org bugs at horde.org
Tue Jan 31 14:17:39 UTC 2012


Ticket URL: http://bugs.horde.org/ticket/10903
  Ticket             | 10903
  Updated By         | Michael Rubinsky <mrubinsk at horde.org>
  Summary            | IMP don't use correcty the selected address books list
                     | after logout and new login
  Queue              | IMP
  Version            | 5.0.17
  Type               | Bug
  State              | Feedback
  Priority           | 2. Medium
  Milestone          |
  Patch              |
  Owners             | Jan Schneider, Michael Rubinsky, Michael Slusarz

Michael Rubinsky <mrubinsk at horde.org> (2012-01-31 14:17) wrote:

> FWIW, the SystemTask upgrade system was never designed to upgrade  
> anything other than a full H3 -> H4 upgrade.  It was not designed to  
> upgrade between H3 versions.

Agreed, and the upgrade task in question wasn't really meant to be run  
for a H3->h4 upgrade anyway. As stated previously, the user should be  
fully upgraded to the latest H3 before attempting an in-place upgrade  
to H4. I agree this can be removed.

> Not to mention that this upgrade task is not tenable.  It is  
> possible that the format of search_sources may change format in 5.1.  
>  And then again in 5.1.1.  And then again in 5.1.2.  The point being  
> that since this code, which directly alters the preference, can not  
> be reliably tracked since it isn't within the application causing  
> the changes.  As seen - I just became aware that there was something  
> altering search_sources outside of scope a few days ago.  This is a  
> bad situation.

I agree. Though I think we need to think about how this might be  
handled in the future if there is a similar format change in one  
application that affects other applications that might store it's  
data. Turba/IMP is the only example I can think of at the moment. In  
H4, this would be handled by migrations, but would still require  
*some* knowledge of the other application. Thinking about this some  
more, this type of change should probably be considered a BC break  
anyway and not be implemented within the same major version number, so  
I guess this point is really moot anyway.

More information about the bugs mailing list