Implement WebDAV ACL operations on calendars (RFC 3744)
I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 1 giorno
Nessuno ha ancora preso questa issue.
Valutazione
- Difficoltà
- 5/5
- Tempo stimato
- 3-5 giorni
- Idoneità per principianti
- 35/100
- Tipo di issue
- Funzionalità
- Chiarezza
- Abbastanza chiara
- Stato di attività
- Tranquilla
- Stack tecnologico
- python
- Ambito
- api, backend-api-design
Direzione di ricerca
Start with caldav/elements/dav.py and §1.1 of docs/design/FEATURE_COMPLETE_ROADMAP.md, then inspect the existing principal_property_search implementation and compatibility hints. The issue proposes phased work: expose ACL-related properties, resolve principals, and support ACL writes with server compatibility checks. Done means the selected phases are implemented and covered by tests that account for servers without ACL support.
Scritto dal modello di indicizzazione a partire dal testo della issue.
Descrizione
We should work on ways to share access to calendars for other users. The established WebDAV standard for this is RFC 3744, unfortunately it's not supported by a lot of servers. There is an expired draft-pot-caldav-sharing that may be supported by some servers - the scope of this issue is to ensure support for RFC 3744, the draft proposal has a separate issue #701.
The estimate for this issue is 40 hours.
The text below is AI-generated.
⚠️ This text is AI-generated (Claude Opus 5 via Claude Code) on behalf of tobixen, from the prompt: "Do we have any issue on RFC 3744 and ACL-operations? If not, create a feature issue for doing ACL-operations on calendars."
The library has no support for access control today: there is no acl() method, no Acl / Privilege / CurrentUserPrivilegeSet elements (caldav/elements/dav.py has only Owner and CurrentUserPrincipal), and no compatibility hints for ACL. docs/design/FEATURE_COMPLETE_ROADMAP.md §1.1 scopes this as a high-priority, 40–60h item and notes "Related issues: None currently open" — this issue is that missing tracking issue.
Closest prior art is #202 ("Is it possible to share calendars with another user using caldav?"), closed in 2022 with "there is no support for granting access rights through the CalDAV protocol". That is still true, and it is the user-facing need this would eventually serve.
Suggested scope, in order of value-per-effort
Phase 1 — read the ACL (cheap, widely supported, useful on its own)
DAV:current-user-privilege-setvia PROPFIND — "what may I do with this calendar?" This alone answers a common practical question (is this calendar read-only for me?) and needs no ACL method support on the server.DAV:owneris already an element but is not exposed on collections.- Read
DAV:acland parse it into something inspectable (ACE list: principal, grant/deny, privileges, protected/inherited flags). DAV:supported-privilege-setso callers can discover what a server actually offers.
Phase 2 — principal resolution
- Resolve a principal from an email address / user name to a principal URL, needed before any ACE can be written.
principal_property_search(RFC 3744 §9.4) already exists in the codebase for this and could be reused. DAV:acl-principal-prop-setREPORT to enumerate who has access.
Phase 3 — write the ACL (the risky part)
- The
ACLHTTP method itself, with the standard privilegesDAV:read,DAV:write,DAV:read-acl,DAV:write-acl, plusCALDAV:read-free-busy(RFC 4791 §6.1). - Convenience helpers for the common patterns: grant read-only, grant read-write, revoke.
- Error handling for the RFC 3744 §7.1.1 precondition-failure bodies (
DAV:not-supported-privilege,DAV:no-protected-ace-conflict,DAV:recognized-principal, …) — servers signal why an ACL was rejected in a machine-readable way, and that should surface as distinct exceptions rather than a generic error.
Compatibility
ACL support is very uneven, so this needs compatibility hints and server-tester checks from the start rather than bolted on afterwards:
- Something like
acl.read,acl.current-user-privilege-setandacl.write, so the integration tests can skip rather than fail. - Radicale has no ACL method; DAViCal, Cyrus and Bedework have varying degrees of support; Google and Nextcloud do sharing through their own non-standard APIs.
Why this may not be worth doing (or not doing first)
Being honest about the downside: RFC 3744 is one of the least uniformly implemented parts of the WebDAV stack. What users actually ask for is calendar sharing (#202), and on the servers most people use, sharing is not done through RFC 3744 — it is done through draft-pot-caldav-sharing (roadmap §3.2) or a server-specific API. So a fully generic ACL implementation risks being a large amount of work that raises "not supported" on the majority of real deployments.
Mitigation is the phasing above: phase 1 is small, broadly supported, and independently useful even if phases 2–3 are never finished.
RFC refs: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3744 and https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4791#section-6.1
⚠️ AI-generated by Claude Opus 5 via Claude Code on behalf of tobixen.
- Lingua principale
- Python
- Stelle
- 412
- Fork
- 113
- Merge medio
- 1g 14h
- PR unite (30g)
- 26
Preparare l'ambiente
- Nessun Dockerfile né file Docker Compose
- Nessun modello di pull request
- Leggi la guida per i contributori
Come iniziare
- Leggi tutta la issue e poi la guida ai contributi del progetto.
- Commenta sulla issue per dire che te ne occupi tu — evita che due persone facciano lo stesso lavoro.
- Fai un fork del repository e lavora su un branch.
- Apri una pull request che faccia riferimento al numero della issue.
Altre issue di python-caldav/caldav
-
Difficoltà 2/5 1-3 ore Idoneità per principianti 62/100
python-caldav/caldav#687 ·
I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 1 giorno
-
Difficoltà 4/5 3-5 giorni Idoneità per principianti 52/100
python-caldav/caldav#749 ·
I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 1 giorno
-
Difficoltà 4/5 3-5 giorni Idoneità per principianti 48/100
python-caldav/caldav#725 ·
I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 1 giorno
-
Difficoltà 3/5 1-2 giorni Idoneità per principianti 48/100
python-caldav/caldav#720 ·
I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 1 giorno
-
Difficoltà 5/5 Più di una settimana Idoneità per principianti 30/100
python-caldav/caldav#704 ·
I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 1 giorno
Tutte le issue di python-caldav/caldav
Issue simili
-
needs triage
Difficoltà 2/5 1-3 ore Idoneità per principianti 83/100
darnitdevorg/darnit#587 ·
I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 1 giorno
-
Difficoltà 2/5 1-3 ore Idoneità per principianti 67/100
I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 1 giorno
-
accessibility good first issue
Difficoltà 1/5 1-3 ore Idoneità per principianti 92/100
I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 1 giorno
-
llm translation
Difficoltà 2/5 1-3 ore Idoneità per principianti 76/100
I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 1 giorno
-
bug bug-hunt
Difficoltà 2/5 1-3 ore Idoneità per principianti 74/100
I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 1 giorno