Menu
▾
▴
1 Attachments
#1350 Contacts Skipped Due to No Unique Property Found
After updating to newest version, I had an error with contact in Google that would not copy to Outlook. As a temporary fix, I removed the contact in Google (for now). Reran and had more errors so I simply decided to do a "Reset Matches", deleting my Outlook Data. I also revoked Authorization. All contacts and calendar events in Outlook were deleted. I only copy Google to Outlook, so I thought it would just copy everything again.
Now it seems that only 238 out of 330 were copied to Outlook. All others were skipped due to No Unique Property Found. I don't understand this. It makes no sense. The attached log only contains information on the latest Sync. I deleted the logs after I did the Reset.
Can you try with newest version 4.1.31 again please? I tried to improve the unique property handling, and I ignore any missing unique property, if the Outlook contacts are empty. And if still not working, provide a new logfile please. https://sourceforge.net/projects/googlesyncmod/upload/Releases/4.1.31/
I can't get to this page. I get the following message "Permission Denied"
Disregard that last message. I got it download and will try it now.
I did a "Reset Matches" and Revoked and Reauthorized before starting the Sync Operation. Log is attached.
Looks like all 332 (Google) was copied to Outlook just fine. I had a WRN on one contact, so I edited it in Google so that only one Phone Number of Type "Other" exists. I had several Calendar 403 issues. I assume these are all Calendar events that my wife sent me to be shared in my calendar. It is my understanding that there is nothing I can do about that. Other than that, it seems to have all work very well. Thanks
Although it does not appear that all the photos copied to Outlook. Many seem to be missing. I tried the same procedure on a second computer to verify. Some photos do not copy from Google to Outlook. This test and logfile is from my computer named: TEST. Previous logfile came from computer named: Laptop_pc
Additionally, Google shows 333 contacts. Both computers (Laptop & Test) copied 332 from Google to Outlook. Both did the same. Some photos made it and some did not. Can't explain why or see a pattern.
Attached are logfiles from Test Computer. I ran the Sync twice using separate logfiles as you can tell by the attachments.
I resolved the missing "Contact Info"; It was not the fault of GCSM. After my changes both Google and Outlook now have 331 contacts. The only GCSM issue is with the photos that did not copy from Google to Outlook. I cannot find a pattern as to why some copied while others did not. Could there be a weight restriction? IDK. You will have to get back to me on this issue and let me know If I need to try anything new. Thanks
Can you provide an example of one of your contacts, which has a photo in Google not copied over to Outlook? are the same contacts affected on both computers (i.e. is there any photo copied over on one PC, but not on other or vice versa)? There might be a size or resolution restriction, I can check the SavePhoto later. Maybe the Google Photo is a special one (e.g. not subject to be identified to be copy in the code, but I will check the restrictions).
Yes, the photo issues are exactly the same using both computers (which is good news).
Examples of contacts not copied to Outlook are: Janet Styck, Linda Atkins, Rushi Amin and many more.
A contact that photo that copied okay is: Michelle Allen (along with several others)
I found a bug in the Photo Handling. Please try again with upcoming version 4.1.32
Do you need to provide me a link to ...32?
will follow soon (today?) after I ran all UnitTests successfully
Yes 4.1.32 is working and all Contact Photos seems to have copied from Google to Outlook. However, I noticed that this new version is not consistent in some of the verbiage used. The GUI has an added feature (for checkbox) that says: "Sync Reminders to other side". Above that in the appointment section, the verbiage is: "Appointmenst private on the other side". You might want to change the verbiage to be consistent. Both should say "... on the other side or both should say ... to the other side.
I know that sounds picky, but I'm a C++ Programmer and noticed the inconsistency.
All the checkboxes don't line up either. These may not all fall under your care to fix but these are what I noticed on this release. Thanks for fixing. Great job.