Skip to content
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

Restore marks restore time not previous sms time #94

Closed
antwonw opened this issue Dec 12, 2010 · 9 comments
Closed

Restore marks restore time not previous sms time #94

antwonw opened this issue Dec 12, 2010 · 9 comments
Milestone

Comments

@antwonw
Copy link

antwonw commented Dec 12, 2010

Had to factory reset my phone. I wanted to restore my text messages from before. I restored and now all my txts list the date and time they were restored on my phone, not the time they were originally received before.

@jberkel
Copy link
Owner

jberkel commented Dec 14, 2010

This happens on some phones, but haven't been able to reproduce this locally

@antwonw
Copy link
Author

antwonw commented Dec 17, 2010

So this is just a per-phone issue not a global android/sms backup issue? (By the way, I am using the Droid X)

@jberkel
Copy link
Owner

jberkel commented Dec 17, 2010

seems to be - esp. droid x seems to behave really weirdly when it comes to timestamps - there's a bug in the firmware (probably customised by motorola).

@madhaus
Copy link

madhaus commented May 29, 2011

I just had the same problem... on the Droid X too. Would the fix recommended for the other timestamp problems also solve this one? I just had my entire system clobbered when I updated the OS and had to do a factory reset. When I restored my text messages, they were all dated today. And here I was hoping that with OS 2.3.3 these issues would have been fixed. Sorry, they are obviously still there, although my messages have been backed up fine.

@EnterSpace
Copy link

Motorola, in general. 2.3.4 Droid X2 stock, and I have same problem. Backups good, restore all restored out of order and stamped with restore time (although restoring "100" off my 5000 DOES restore the most recent 100, within the threading on phone it is random.) Other software has tracked this down and fixed:
http://android.riteshsahu.com/misc/faqs-about-sms-backup-restore#q21

@spectas
Copy link

spectas commented Jun 8, 2013

Hi, did anyone find a solution for this problem? I am having it too, on a HTC Wildfire. This would be very helpful, as all messages are mixed now.
Kind regards!!
Spectas

Hardware: HTC Wildfire
Android version: 2.3.7
Cyanogenmod version: 7.2.0-buzz
SMS Backup+ version: 1.4.8

@jberkel
Copy link
Owner

jberkel commented Jun 30, 2013

All that said, it turns out that there's a workaround. When you insert a message, that sets the thread's datestamp to the time of insert. But when you delete a message from a thread (identified by the "address" field in the "content://sms" provider), it has to recalculate the thread datestamp. So for every thread you stuff something into, stuff another dummy message in as well and then delete it. Which is easy because the insert method returns a Uri that you can call the delete method on. I suspect this is horribly inefficient.

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6903885/android-programatically-inserted-sms-have-incorrect-timestamp-in-messaging-apps/6911015#6911015

@luckyrat
Copy link

This used to work fine on my HTC One M7 on Android 4.x but since the upgrade to Android 5.0.1, I experience this issue so can no longer rely on this application.

Perhaps it's still just a case of some (albeit different) phones being affected by this bug in Android 5 but I wanted to mention it here since if it affects all Android 5 phones it might become a major issue in the coming months.

@jberkel jberkel added this to the 1.5.9 milestone Jun 12, 2015
@jberkel
Copy link
Owner

jberkel commented Jun 12, 2015

I tried this with Android 5.1 (emulator) and could not reproduce. Timestamps are correct there. Think it might be device specific. Closing.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants