internal: non-strict RFC ETag format support#174
internal: non-strict RFC ETag format support#174borisovdev wants to merge 1 commit intoemersion:masterfrom
Conversation
|
This is non-standard, so not sure I want to maintain this. This also unnecessarily uses regular expressions, and falls apart when marshaling etags. |
Thanks for the quick reply and your time! Thanks for pointing out MarshalText, I should be more careful. I'm marking PR as draft and will finalize it as soon as I have free time. |
355f16f to
fb85cd0
Compare
|
I like to clarify details, to avoid misunderstandings) We are talking about https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2616#section-3.11, right? About the review:
the fate of this item is in your hands:) Rebased and updated the branch |
|
I also encountered this problem when using DavMail. The edits are very minimal and I don't want to make a fork for this. I am sure that with these changes it will only get better! |
For some caldav providers, it wasn't possible to unmarshal unquoted text for etag. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2616#section-3.11 points to wrap text with quotes, but in reality it's sometimes ignored. internal: test for ETag UnmarshalText, ETag String, ETag unmarshal and marshal
fb85cd0 to
9d2522d
Compare
|
another option would be to check if the |
|
another comment, if this is used (by changing |
|
This Pull requests is great! I now can use CardDAV from Mailbox.org! Please merge it! |
|
This PR treats weak ETags as strong ETags, and breaks when marshaling an ETag value. |
For some caldav providers, it wasn't possible to unmarshal unquoted text for etag
Referenced to #165, #69