Hacktoberfest 2026: những issue maintainer đã đánh dấu cho tháng Mười, đang mở và phù hợp người mới. Xem issue Hacktoberfest

Extended MKCOL (RFC 5689): detection, testing and 207 handling

Đang mở
  • Có gì không ổn?
#702 0 bình luận 0 reaction 0 người được giao Xem trên GitHub

Maintainer thường phản hồi trong vòng 1 ngày

Chưa có ai nhận issue này.

Đánh giá

Độ khó
4/5
Thời gian dự kiến
3-5 ngày
Mức phù hợp với người mới
45/100
Loại issue
Lỗi
Độ rõ ràng
Khá rõ ràng
Mức độ hoạt động
Ít trao đổi
Công nghệ
python
Lĩnh vực
api

Hướng nghiên cứu

Read RFC 5689 section 3, then inspect Calendar._create() and _async_create() in collection.py, along with the create-calendar description in compatibility_hints.py. Start by tracing how expected return codes and 207 Multi-Status responses are handled; the immediate success criterion is that the code recognizes a created collection and reports property failures. The broader detection and server-tester tasks need separate scoping.

Do mô hình lập chỉ mục viết ra từ nội dung của issue.

Mô tả

enhancement roadmap

Some history ...

  • Back when the very first versions of the library was implemented, MKCOL was used instead of MKCALENDAR for creating calendars.
  • MKCOL didn't work at all servers. The CalDAV standard specifies that there is a method MKCALENDAR that should be used. I changed the library from using MKCOL to using MKCALENDAR when creating calendars.
  • In January 2026 I asked Claude to make me a list of features that were missing from the caldav library. RFC 5689 was flagged (see the file docs/design/FEATURE_COMPLETE_ROADMAP.md).
  • I forgot about this, but later I discovered that some of the servers where MKCALENDAR doesn't work supports creating calendars through MKCOL, so now there is some logic in there trying both methods.
  • Now, Claude claims that most of the work here is already done.

The very least I need to do here is to read through RFC 5689 and see if I understand it.

AI-generated analysis below the line

⚠️ This issue is AI-generated (Claude Opus 5 via Claude Code) on behalf of tobixen, from the prompt: "3.3 Extended MKCOL (RFC 5689) also needs an issue"

Not a green field — most of it is already there

The roadmap said "support extended MKCOL as an alternative to MKCALENDAR" as if nothing existed. That is wrong, and the roadmap has been corrected: Calendar._create() in collection.py already builds an extended MKCOL request — dav.Mkcol() wrapping a DAV:set/DAV:prop with resourcetype set to collection + calendar, plus display name and supported-calendar-component-set — and uses it instead of MKCALENDAR whenever the server is configured with create-calendar: {support: quirk, behaviour: mkcol-required}. Properties are therefore already set atomically at creation, with a PROPPATCH afterwards only as a fallback.

What is missing is everything around it.

Tasks

  • Nothing detects support. The MKCOL path is only taken when a server profile declares mkcol-required, and exactly one profile does (baikal_old). A server that supports both, or only extended MKCOL, is not discovered — there is no "try MKCALENDAR, fall back to MKCOL on 405/501" and no probe.
  • Nothing tests it. The description of the create-calendar feature in compatibility_hints.py already admits this: "RFC5689 extended MKCOL may also be used to create calendar collections as an alternative to MKCALENDAR. We should consider testing this as well". A caldav-server-tester check would tell us how much of the matrix supports it, which is the input needed for everything else here.
  • A 207 response is treated as an error. RFC 5689 section 3 says that when the collection is created but a property could not be set, the server answers 207 Multi-Status with a propstat per property. Both _create() and _async_create() pass expected_return_value=201, so such a response raises instead of being parsed — we would neither know which property failed nor that the collection exists.
  • Consider a feature flag distinguishing "supports extended MKCOL" from "requires it", since mkcol-required currently conflates the two.
  • Consider whether extended MKCOL for plain (non-calendar) collections belongs on the object API; today only the raw mkcol() method on the client exists.

Worth it?

The honest case against: MKCALENDAR works on nearly everything, and the one profile that needs MKCOL is an old Baikal. The 207 handling is the part with real bite — it is a latent bug rather than a missing feature, and it is cheap. Detection and a server-tester check are the natural companions to it. The rest can wait.

RFC: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5689

⚠️ AI-generated by Claude Opus 5 via Claude Code on behalf of tobixen.

Ngôn ngữ chính
Python
Star
412
Fork
113
Merge trung bình
1 ngày 7 giờ
Pull request đã merge (30 ngày)
34

Chuẩn bị môi trường

Bắt đầu từ đâu

  1. Đọc hết issue, rồi đọc hướng dẫn đóng góp của dự án.
  2. Bình luận trên issue rằng bạn sẽ nhận — tránh hai người làm cùng một việc.
  3. Fork repository và làm thay đổi trên một nhánh.
  4. Mở pull request có tham chiếu số hiệu của issue.

Issue khác của python-caldav/caldav

Tất cả issue của python-caldav/caldav

Issue tương tự

Thêm issue về Python

Nhận issue mới trong hộp thư của bạn

Bản tóm tắt ngắn những issue GitHub phù hợp với người mới.