Use of undocumented precondition code

[ksmurchison]

CardDAV/errorcondition.xml PUTs invalid vCard data and expects failure. However, it looks for a CARDDAV:valid-addressbook-object-resource precondition which does not appear in RFC 6352. The most appropriate documented precondition code is CARDDAV:valid-address-data.

Should we change the test to look for the documented precondition code, or modifiy the prepostcondition validator to accept multiple values? I looked at doing the latter but I don't understand Python well enough to make the change.

[douglm]

I guess we need to determine whether or not Apple is actually generating that (a search of their source might reveal it). If so an extension to the RFC might be in order .

…

On 10/3/17 11:14, Ken Murchison wrote: CardDAV/errorcondition.xml PUTs invalid vCard data and expects failure. However, it looks for a CARDDAV:valid-addressbook-object-resource precondition which does not appear in RFC 6352. The most appropriate documented precondition code is CARDDAV:valid-address-data. Should we change the test to look for the documented precondition code, or modifiy the prepostcondition validator to accept multiple values? I looked at doing the latter but I don't understand Python well enough to make the change. — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#6>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AC2mBjSiRA-ndplGeJw3cGkyWOZV06T3ks5sok9kgaJpZM4PsSWX>.

[ksmurchison]

It does appear in the Apple source code. I'm guessing its supposed to be the analog of valid-calendar-object-resource