-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Multiple connected calendar issue(s) #49
Comments
@duncan-m when you say nominated calendar? How are you trying to nominate? |
When I say nominated calendar I mean the calendar that you select i.e. users list on the modal when you're creating an event after selecting one-to-one event. |
@duncan-m I guess that's location what you are referring to. If we add a feature in events to choose which calendars should be used to insert new event, will that help? By default the application adds to all connected calendars for selected owner (code example below)
|
@vickyRathee No it is owner that I am referring to in the bug notes above. A single location Google Meet was set in Location. With Owner A set and calendar connected along with calendar B, C. It added the meeting to Calendar A & B as well as the address added on the booking form. In the second scenario it as well as booking in Calendar B it also emailed another colleague the calendar invite. |
@duncan-m Ok, it seems you are trying to connect your + your colleagues calendar from your account? Which associates all calendars to your account automatically, as you are the one who is logged in while connecting. So, instead of connecting others/colleagues calendar from your account. You should add those users on DaySchedule, and let them connect calendars with their login so that the calendars associates with their That way only event owner calendars will be booked. |
Sorry I think you're misunderstanding. The calendars I had connected were all mine, none were my colleagues. If the intended behaviour of connected calendars it to book new meetings in all of them rather than checking free busy and booking in ONE it is not working and booking in TWO out of THREE. It is also not working as not only is it in the second example adding to the non-owner account but randomly some how adding to another, unconnected, unlinked user from contacts or some other means. If the intended behaviour is to enable connecting to calendars to see free/busy and book in ONE only it is not working. If this is not the intended behaviour the UX is not making it clear that bookings should go to all calendars. Based on the UI I would only expect bookings to be added to calendars that you set when creating the event. If the last point is the case then... When I create an event I would like to be able to select which connected calendars an event is added to so that sensitive information is not added to the wrong calendar. I would probably look at an enhancement like. When I set multiple calendars to add to when creating an event I would like to be able to set which calendars the full event is added to and which calendars a busy entry is added to so that I don't overshare and so that the time is blocked correctly in all calendars. I hope that helps. |
@duncan-m Accepted. @jainshubh0612 Let's add an option to select calendars in an event, so that the event is added to selected calendar only. UI like this - |
That makes sense. It solves the booking in the wrong calendar. It doesn't completely solve making the other calendars busy with 'Busy' or restricted bookings but it solves one of the issues. |
@duncan-m That will be a separate feature on calendar connections. We will discuss that internally, something like this to add on calendar connections -
|
Yup something like that. I'd also look into the unexpected behaviour as well...good work on the fast response to issues here on GH. Five stars. I'll sign up again once the bugs are fixed and if/when this is done :-) |
Current behaviour
Expected behaviour
Separate possibly related bug/issue
Current behaviour
Expected behaviour
According to your support this behaviour is normal and as expected but I suspect it isn't.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: