search

etesync / etesync-dav

This is a CalDAV and CardDAV adapter for EteSync
https://www.etesync.com
GNU General Public License v3.0
290 stars 47 forks source link

macos instructions link on EteSync DAV Management page is broken #197

Closed alanruttenberg closed 3 years ago

alanruttenberg commented 3 years ago

broken link: https://github.com/etesync/etesync-dav/blob/master/macos-instructions.md should it be instead https://github.com/etesync/etesync-dav/wiki/MacOS-instructions ?

Salt-Factory commented 3 years ago

Hi @alanruttenberg, you should indeed refer to the wiki link for the correct instructions. However, I cannot find the broken link in the README. Is it possible that you are using an older version of the README (from more than 7 days ago)? The link was only recently changed to point to the wiki.

alanruttenberg commented 3 years ago

I believe it was on the legacy add page. It's in the code if you search for it - see attached image. But it being broken also affects some issues where the link is mentioned: #96, #70

FWIW I'm have no luck in getting Etesync on mac Catalina working, and the web app is confusing. In contacts.app it seems to be using only one of my collections (the wrong one, as it happens) and I see no way to change it, and the instructions don't seem to say anything about this. There's the links provided on the collections page, but it isn't clear whether those are supposed to be used as server urls in the mac accounts setup.

I had to add my account as "legacy". I've no idea why or what legacy even means.

On the web app it merges the two contact collections I have, but there's no way to see which collection a particular entry has. Moreover it shows a sort-of duplicate for an entry that my android contacts says is in only one of the collections.

I can send you particulars privately if you would like. instructions

ps. paying customer

alanruttenberg commented 3 years ago

It looks like the sort-of duplicate is from an entry that I added then edited. When I search on android I only see the current version. In looking at the log, I see two entries, one for the original, and one for the edited. Is the web app perhaps considering those to both be valid and distinct entries, by chance?

alanruttenberg commented 3 years ago

Another clue on the sort-of duplicate: The most recent version has a UID but the older one does not.

Salt-Factory commented 3 years ago

Thanks, I changed the dead link.

Could you open up a new issue describing your problem? Otherwise it will get buried here.

alanruttenberg commented 3 years ago

I split out the other two issues. Closing this one.