GNU bug report logs - #21971
25.1.50; EUDC conversion to BBDB 3 incompatibility

Previous Next

Full log

Message #14 received at 21971 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Thomas Fitzsimmons <fitzsim <at> fitzsim.org>
To: George McNinch <gmcninch <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 21971 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#21971: 25.1.50; EUDC conversion to BBDB 3 incompatibility
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 11:36:37 -0500

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

George McNinch <gmcninch <at> gmail.com> writes:

> Hi Thomas,
>
>     TF> With your eudc-ldap-bbdb-conversion-alist workaround still
>     TF> enabled, can you try the attached patch to see if it fixes
>     TF> exporting for you?
>
> Indeed, this works fine for me; thanks!
>
>     >> Note also that the setting of eudc-ldap-bbdb-conversion-alist I
>     >> made above isn't quite the original value. If I instead use the
>     >> original value, e.g. by instead using the original value
>     >> 
>     >> [which amounts to:
>     >> 
>     >> (setq eudc-ldap-bbdb-conversion-alist `((name . cn) (net . mail)
>     >> (address eudc-bbdbify-address postaladdress "Address") (phone
>     >> (eudc-bbdbify-phone telephonenumber "Phone")))
>     >> 
>     >> 
>     >> in the initialization of EUDC],
>     >> 
>     >> then when I press "b" on a record in the *Directory Query
>     >> Results* buffer, I get the error
>     >> 
>     >> eudc-bbdbify-phone: Symbol’s function definition is void:
>     >> bbdb-parse-phone-number
>
>     TF> OK, this seems like a separate issue.  I haven't investigated it
>     TF> yet.
>
> Right; should I have made a separate report, or is this OK?  

It's fine, we can work on it here.

> --------------------------------------------
> By the way:
>
> I wonder: if bbdb really now uses "mail" instead of "net", I'd think
> that (?) that eudc-ldap-bbdb-conversion-alist should instead read:
>
>   (setq eudc-ldap-bbdb-conversion-alist
>    `((name . cn)
>      (mail . mail)
>      (address eudc-bbdbify-address postaladdress "Address")))
>
> But that doesn't seem to work (I tried... I get then BBDB record with
> *no* mail field at all).
>
> In general, I find it difficult to work out what can be used in that
> alist. E.g. it seems that there is a key symbol ou for the record
> passed to eudc-create-bbdb-record.
>
> So I tried adding the pair
>
>  (Organizations . ou)
>
> to that alist, but it doens't seem to populate the "right part of the
> BBDB record" - in fact, the BBDB record gets a new line with an
> Organizations field, but it makes the BBDB unhappy (it eventually
> complains of an "illegal field" or something). I'd hoped to populate the
> bit that shows up to the right of the name when displaying the BBDB
> record, which I thought was called "Organizations".
>
> I also tried (organization . ou) and (company . ou) and maybe a few
> others, but nothing seemed to work and guessing doesn't seem so healthy,
> and looking at the code in eudc-export.el doesn't seem like
>
> Well, this is a distraction, and only tangentially related to the patch,
> but it does point out that it'd be nice to have a clearer definition of
> the fields on both sides of this conversion...!

Can you remove your eudc-ldap-bbdb-conversion-alist customization and
try the attached patch?  I think it will fix both the phone parsing and
organization missing issues.

I wouldn't worry about 'net unless you're customizing it directly.  It's
a change and I left the old 'net as the customization entry point, but
it will get converted to 'mail depending on which version of BBDB is in
use.

Thomas

[0001-Improve-EUDC-to-BBDB-3-export.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.