rmaucher commented on PR #771: URL: https://github.com/apache/tomcat/pull/771#issuecomment-2437336012
+1 for the third one (the request will not work so it's better to send the specified 400 code immediately), I just fixed it. For the other two, about depth, I left it as is on purpose. There's no status code mentioned for a bad depth, and there's a default value if absent. IMO pretending it's either 0 if specified or inifinity otherwise is not bad. Note: There are some items where you must not be strict like the lock timeout just after the depth header in the code. BTW, if you submit tests, having a WebDAV compliance testsuite is not a goal for Tomcat (it was structured that way with HTTP/2 because HTTP/2 is critical for Tomcat), although we're probably not going to refuse it. The general idea is to have good coverage and cover some complex scenarios. Maybe you can submit code to Litmus and see what happens if something is not covered by it (evidently the three items here are not since Litmus is all ok), since the goal there is to be a WebDAV compliance testsuite. WebdavServletRfcSectionBase (renamed to WebdavServletBaseTest IMO) could be a good idea to make the existing tests less verbose. Verifying it is really the case would be start, of course. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
