How do these two relate? By my, possibly flawed, logic if an item is marked private it should not sync, thus negating the need for a SugarSync. And if these are not the same fields named differently then are there plans to put a SugarSync on appointments?
The only reason I can see for a SugarSync field is if you want to Sync a lot of non-private items (contacts) but not all of them.
(and i know i've been asking a lot of questions here lately, but hopefully they are of use to others as well. If not, feel free to tell me to RTFM.)
Private items should not sync. This is a known issue that we are actively working to fix.
I get that Privates shouldn't sync, and thanks for adding that functionality, my question is more about the intended purpose of the SugarSync Outlook User-Defined field (for Contacts) in relation to Outlook's existing Private field. I'm in the space of having to explain the SugarSync field to those trying to use it and getting confused because they don't see it in the Calendar Items. I just want to make sure I understand it's intended purpose before I try to explain it to them.
Thanks
We have to duplicate the SugarCRM behavior in order to allow our plug-in to work interchangeably with their plug-in. Being interchangeable will allow us to more agressively court SugarCRM users. You will have to ask the SugarCRM developers why they use a separate flag.
Understood, Thanks.
In your implementation of the private checkbox and appointments, will private appointments still show as blocked off time in Sugar? or will they be completely ignored by the Plug-In? The desired functionality is that they show up in the CRM as unavailable blocks of time.
