When rename a document (from client) CmisSync launch a conflict related the own user, as shows the image attached

[Vikcen]

It says an unknown user added a file at the same time as you. It occurs always, being the same user that renamed the document.

Could you help us with that please?

Greetings.

[Nicolas Raoul]

Thank you for reporting!
We are currently in the middle of a big refactoring, hopefully it will solve this problem.

[Vikcen]

Thanks a lot for the fast feedback!

Could be that the client (CmisSync) is not refreshing the object of the renamed document after the rename operation? something like this:

Also, this is the log im getting:

CmisSync.Lib.Cmis.BaseException: Referencia a objeto no establecida como instancia de un objeto. ---> System.NullReferenceException: Referencia a objeto no establecida como instancia de un objeto.
en CmisSync.Lib.Sync.CmisRepo.SynchronizedFolder.ProcessRecoverableException(String logMessage, Exception exception)
en CmisSync.Lib.Sync.CmisRepo.SynchronizedFolder.CheckLocalFile(String localFilePath, IFolder remoteFolder, IList1 localFilenameTranslationOfExistingRemoteDocuments) en CmisSync.Lib.Sync.CmisRepo.SynchronizedFolder.CheckLocalFiles(String localFolder, IFolder remoteFolder, IList1 localFilenameTranslationOfExistingRemoteDocuments)
en CmisSync.Lib.Sync.CmisRepo.SynchronizedFolder.CrawlSync(IFolder remoteFolder, String remotePath, String localFolder)
en CmisSync.Lib.Sync.CmisRepo.SynchronizedFolder.Sync()
en CmisSync.Lib.Sync.CmisRepo.SynchronizedFolder.<>c__DisplayClass35_0.<.ctor>b__0(Object o, DoWorkEventArgs args)
--- Fin del seguimiento de la pila de la excepción interna ---

Seems like it no refresh the object,and it is asking for the old document, that already doesn't exist in the server because it was renamed.

Could you do a simple test of rename a document within the synchronized folder from the client (CmisSync), that is connected against your cmis server, if you are getting the same problem?

Greetings and thank you.

[Vikcen]

No problem, the rename is working now, we had an issue in our server implementation.