Skip to content

Conversation

@edel-macias-cubix
Copy link
Contributor

@edel-macias-cubix edel-macias-cubix commented Apr 25, 2025

Related to #471 and #472
After having a deeper look at it, it seems that unquoting all properties could make other servers break.
I propose that we only apply a fix when the situation requires it only.
This will reduce error logging and hopefully won't break other servers.

This is the request and reply this PR addresses:

URL: https://confluence.domain.com/plugins/servlet/team-calendars/caldav/principals/users/user@domain.com/
Method: PROPFIND

RESPONSE:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
<DAV:multistatus xmlns:DAV="DAV:" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:caldav" xmlns:AI="http://apple.com/ns/ical/" xmlns:BSS="http://bedeworkcalserver.org/ns/" xmlns:CS="http://calendarserver.org/ns/" xmlns:ical="http://www.w3.org/2002/12/cal/ical#">
      
    <DAV:response>
            
        <DAV:href>/plugins/servlet/team-calendars/caldav/principals/users/user%2540domain.com/</DAV:href>
            
        <DAV:propstat>
                  
            <DAV:prop>
                    
                <calendar-home-set>
                              
                    <DAV:href>/plugins/servlet/team-calendars/caldav/calendars</DAV:href>
                            
                </calendar-home-set>
                      
            </DAV:prop>
                  
            <DAV:status>HTTP/1.1 200 ok</DAV:status>
                
        </DAV:propstat>
          
    </DAV:response>
    
</DAV:multistatus>

@tobixen
Copy link
Member

tobixen commented Apr 25, 2025

I was thinking a bit, but considered that in worst case it would propably only cause silly warnings about path handling problems on other servers. Anyway, good to have a better fix in place.

@tobixen tobixen merged commit f69fc97 into python-caldav:master Apr 25, 2025
8 checks passed
@tobixen
Copy link
Member

tobixen commented Apr 25, 2025

I'm not super happy about this one, with hard coded "magic" in it - but from a risk-assessment view it's safer than the previous edition, so I'll let it pass. :-)

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants