* It appears as if our running multiple sync threads can confuse the
mobile sync server during a remote wipe (the server expects the next
client response to be an acknowledgment, whereas it might well be
a command or response from a different thread)
* To avoid this, we first put the account on security hold and then
shut down all other sync threads for the account
* After this, we send the acknowledgment and the remote wipe proceeds
normally.
* NOTE: It's possible that, due to the vagaries of multithreaded
operation, one of the other syncing threads could still send a non-
acknowledgment response to the server before our provisioning thread
gets a chance to send its acknowledgment. However, since the other
syncing threads will terminate (and not restart, because of the hold),
the provision/remote wipe/ack sequence will work on the subsequent
attempt
Bug: 2844888
Backport From: Ib4ffbbc67b681e69176b6c1d5515fa80c7d1e121
Backport From: Ie9e944bd39f331c2ddc0f0ba303a3d5684f6f033
Change-Id: Ie57f13a5ca2149961a48b99afaebb812f1cbc88e
* Apps trying to open attachments using AttachmentProvider were
seeing SecurityExceptions due to the fact that internal calls
from AttachmentProvider to EmailProvider didn't have their
calling identity saved/restored.
* Updated provider calls so that these calls use the Email
process' identity.
* Backport of Ifb71ad834530c6232728e1aad31439991f8ed379, fixing
2908737
Bug: 3121146
Change-Id: Ifa3a0ca8d3e34733c937d7f8c60f068984e1f4f2
* It appears as if our running multiple sync threads can confuse the
mobile sync server during a remote wipe (the server expects the next
client response to be an acknowledgment, whereas it might well be
a command or response from a different thread)
* To avoid this, we first put the account on security hold and then
shut down all other sync threads for the account
* After this, we send the acknowledgment and the remote wipe proceeds
normally.
* NOTE: It's possible that, due to the vagaries of multithreaded
operation, one of the other syncing threads could still send a non-
acknowledgment response to the server before our provisioning thread
gets a chance to send its acknowledgment. However, since the other
syncing threads will terminate (and not restart, because of the hold),
the provision/remote wipe/ack sequence will work on the subsequent
attempt
Bug: 2844888
Backport From: Ib4ffbbc67b681e69176b6c1d5515fa80c7d1e121
Change-Id: Ie9e944bd39f331c2ddc0f0ba303a3d5684f6f033
* Apparently, Exchange 2003 doesn't like to see Visibility set in
Exceptions
* Apparently, Exchange 2003 likes to see Exception Deleted and
ExceptionStartTime prior to other data
* The word "apparently" is used above to indicate that these
findings are not part of any specification, but have been
determined empirically
Bug: 2775885
Backport of: I163f156675f65c494a59d5233b2b6e23b3f1d6a0
Change-Id: I5d32dea5c3903147725b8df87a71e961a4d78c60
The format string "The server %s requires that you allow it to remotely
control some security features of your phone." was being displayed with
the account name instead of the server name.
Bug: 3011124
Change-Id: I1aadb5790297777831dd69f04ea89641240b7b87
* Makes the side-scrollable again
* Required after making them non-long-clickable
Requires companion change in WebView, to allow touch events while
clickable or long clickable (it had been requiring both)
Bug: 3036477
Change-Id: I4cae46d047f825d2aab08d254287855b187e9207
* Check array returned by split("=")
* Add unit tests for this case
* Also add unit tests for quoting removal
Bug: 3040796
Backport from: I170f3cd483fe35186194edeb0c3142fb0e2e9b75
Change-Id: I32ccbdbc7264a95a9cd279218cae390e65e82eeb
* The meaning of a busy status of "Busy" is uncertain; it could mean
"Accepted" or "Tentative", depending on whether the event was
created via OWA/Outlook or EAS
* We have interpreted it as "Accepted", which prevents the user from
actually accepting the event (as a state change is required for us
to send updates to the server/organizer)
* This CL changes the behavior such that a newly arriving event with
a "Busy" status is shown as "No response" in the Calendar, thereby
allowing the user to pick from any of the three possible options.
Bug: 2811859
Change-Id: I321f714e54e66ee8f40f5e2c00587b98bad71a63
* This gets very confused by the new text copy logic
* Downside is that copy from received message does not work at all
(it didn't work anyway).
* Will fix in next release by redesigning MessageView layout and no
longer wrapping in ScrollView
Bug: 2998892
Change-Id: Icd1219f3c45fd4da9259499e9c8a31ed0d3c4c30
- Merged all three BroadcastReceivers into one.
(Changed class name because old ones may have been disabled.)
- Use IntentService to perform the tasks in a worker thread.
Note the new receiver will never be disabled. We always need to start
exchange.SyncManager.
Bug 2722155
Bug 2416929
Backport of I8241880fc1ee38d85dcdca7e1d46fc2f6b2d375b
Change-Id: I9835cf86846d842e6f2d23014bc0912c3b888a05
