Bug 2071056

Summary:	evolution 3.40 is unable to access google address book. Contacts API is being deprecated
Product:	Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9	Reporter:	Lars Bohnsack <lbohnsac>
Component:	evolution	Assignee:	Milan Crha <mcrha>
Status:	CLOSED ERRATA	QA Contact:	Michal Odehnal <modehnal>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	9.0	CC:	ljanda, modehnal
Target Milestone:	rc	Keywords:	Triaged
Target Release:	---	Flags:	pm-rhel: mirror+
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:	evolution-3.40.4-4.el9	Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:
Clones:	2071893 (view as bug list)		Environment:
Last Closed:	2022-11-15 10:02:24 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:
Bug Blocks:	2071893

Description Lars Bohnsack 2022-04-01 16:51:10 UTC

Description of problem:
RHEL9 beta is shipped with evolution 3.40 which has unfortunately still the issue "Contacts API is being deprecated" 

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
3.40

How reproducible:
always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Setup a Google Online Account 
2. Start evolution
3. Switch to Contacts and click on Contacts of the Online Account

Actual results:
Error message:
Failed to connect address book “lbohnsac : Contacts”

Invalid request URI or header, or unsupported nonstandard parameter: Contacts API is being deprecated. Migrate to People API to retain programmatic access to Google Contacts. See https://developers.google.com/people/contacts-api-migration.

Expected results:
Access to the address book

Additional info:
There is evolution 3.42 available which fixes the issue.

Comment 1 Milan Crha 2022-04-04 06:43:37 UTC

Thanks for a bug report. I guess I can backport relevant changes to the evolution-data-server [1] and evolution. The only downside is that there are two new translatable strings (which is the reason, why this change didn't reach the 3.40.x series upstream).

[1] https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/evolution-data-server/-/commit/d63a1ce3921a6a6c573a6a70dbf2e152adf74c3f
[2] https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/evolution/-/commit/f19eeea7601f1ddeae074fab52eba5fe5b389bb5

Comment 2 Milan Crha 2022-04-05 07:29:20 UTC

The two new translatable strings mentioned in the comment #1 are:

   "Default User Address Book"
   "Address Book:"

I took translations from the current upstream development version, which covers .po files for ca, cs, da, de, el, es, eu, fr, fur, gl, hr, hu, id, it, ko, lt, lv, nb, nl, pl, pt, pt_BR, ro, ru, sl, sr, tr, uk, zh_CN. I took also partial translations (only one string) for eo, fi, kk, sk.

Of course, I do not speak those languages, thus it'll nice to have someone to check out whether it's a correct translation, but I trust the upstream translators (and to my copy&paste foo).

@ljanda: Could you verify the supported languages are covered and if not, provide translation for those strings in the missing languages, please?

I'll commit the current version for now, with a possible update later, when the translations are sorted out.

Comment 3 Lars Bohnsack 2022-04-05 07:32:03 UTC

For German language i can help...

Comment 4 Milan Crha 2022-04-05 08:12:47 UTC

(In reply to Lars Bohnsack from comment #3)
> For German language i can help...

Thanks. If I'm not mistaken, it's covered in the 'de' translation:

   "Default User Address Book"
   "Standard-Benutzer-Adressbuch"

   "Address Book:"
   "Adressbuch:"

Comment 5 Lars Bohnsack 2022-04-05 08:14:27 UTC

Look good!

Comment 14 errata-xmlrpc 2022-11-15 10:02:24 UTC

Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory (evolution bug fix and enhancement update), and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2022:7994