-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 76
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
internal: non-strict RFC ETag format support #174
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
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 |
For some caldav providers, it wasn't possible to unmarshal unquoted text for etag
Referenced to #165, #69