Bug 270038

Summary:	kaddressbook does not allow me to set offline cache policy for LDAP addressbook
Product:	[Applications] kaddressbook	Reporter:	Chris Purves <chris>
Component:	general	Assignee:	kdepim bugs <kdepim-bugs>
Status:	RESOLVED UNMAINTAINED
Severity:	normal	CC:	tokoe
Priority:	NOR
Version:	unspecified
Target Milestone:	---
Platform:	Ubuntu
OS:	Linux
Latest Commit:		Version Fixed In:

Description Chris Purves 2011-04-03 22:49:12 UTC

Version:           unspecified (using KDE 4.4.5) 
OS:                Linux

When setting offline cache policy for LDAP addressbook, I have the options to:
* do not use offline cache
* use local copy if no connection
* always use local copy

If I select one of those three options and click OK, if I return to the settings my selection is cleared.  In addition, the option Refresh offline cache automatically cannot be unchecked.

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1.  Start kaddressbook
2.  right-click LDAP addressbook and select Addressbook properties...
3.  click Offline Use button
4.  Select any one of the three Offline Cache Policy options.
5.  Click OK
6.  Click Offline Use button
7.  Previous selection has been cleared.

Actual Results:  
Previously selected offline cache policy is cleared.

Expected Results:  
Previously selected offline cache policy remains selected.

I find that kaddressbook often becomes out of sync with what is on the LDAP server.  I suspect that this is related.

Comment 1 Denis Kurz 2016-09-24 20:52:28 UTC

This bug has only been reported for versions before 4.14, which have been unsupported for at least two years now. Can anyone tell if this bug still present?

If noone confirms this bug for a Framework-based version of kaddressbook (version 5.0 or later, as part of KDE Applications 15.08 or later), it gets closed in about three months.

Comment 2 Denis Kurz 2017-01-07 22:49:15 UTC

Just as announced in my last comment, I close this bug. If you encounter it again in a recent version (at least 5.0 aka 15.08), please open a new one unless it already exists. Thank you for all your input.