Skip to content
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

[Bug]: calendar-access missing from DAV header on #37374

Open
6 of 9 tasks
WhyNotHugo opened this issue Mar 23, 2023 · 2 comments
Open
6 of 9 tasks

[Bug]: calendar-access missing from DAV header on #37374

WhyNotHugo opened this issue Mar 23, 2023 · 2 comments
Labels
0. Needs triage Pending check for reproducibility or if it fits our roadmap 25-feedback bug feature: caldav Related to CalDAV internals feature: dav

Comments

@WhyNotHugo
Copy link

WhyNotHugo commented Mar 23, 2023

⚠️ This issue respects the following points: ⚠️

  • This is a bug, not a question or a configuration/webserver/proxy issue.
  • This issue is not already reported on Github (I've searched it).
  • Nextcloud Server is up to date. See Maintenance and Release Schedule for supported versions.
  • Nextcloud Server is running on 64bit capable CPU, PHP and OS.
  • I agree to follow Nextcloud's Code of Conduct.

Bug description

I'm writing a function to check whether a given URL corresponds to a server supporting CALDAV or not. For this, I'm checking the DAV URL as specified in rfc4791#section-5.1:

A server supporting the features described in this document MUST
include "calendar-access" as a field in the DAV response header from
an OPTIONS request on any resource that supports any calendar
properties, reports, method, or privilege. A value of "calendar-
access" in the DAV response header MUST indicate that the server
supports all MUST level requirements specified in this document.

The URL (https://example.com/remote.php/dav) does support calendar access; I can successfully use REPORT to fetch calendar resources and PROPFIND to enumerate calendar resources and collections, so I'm quite sure I have the right URL.

Steps to reproduce

  1. Send an OPTIONS http request.

Expected behavior

The DAV header should contain calendar-access.

Installation method

Other Community project

I don't have access to the server installation; I only have a test account which someone is lending me to test NextCloud support. As such, I don't have most of the below details.

Operating system

Other

PHP engine version

Other

Web server

Other

Database engine version

Other

Is this bug present after an update or on a fresh install?

None

Are you using the Nextcloud Server Encryption module?

Encryption is Disabled

What user-backends are you using?

  • Default user-backend (database)
  • LDAP/ Active Directory
  • SSO - SAML
  • Other

Configuration report

No response

List of activated Apps

No response

Nextcloud Signing status

No response

Nextcloud Logs

No response

Additional info

Version from the about screen:

image

(I'm not entirely sure why, but text selection for copy-pasting was not possible).

@WhyNotHugo WhyNotHugo added 0. Needs triage Pending check for reproducibility or if it fits our roadmap bug labels Mar 23, 2023
@WhyNotHugo
Copy link
Author

Note that calendar access itself does work, it's merely not advertised.

So when I try to check whether the URL is correct, the result is false, but when I try to use it assuming it is correct, it works.

@WhyNotHugo
Copy link
Author

I should have specified for completeness's sake, the DAV header contains the following value:

1, 3, extended-mkcol, access-control, calendarserver-principal-property-search, nextcloud-checksum-update, nc-calendar-search, nc-enable-birthday-calendar

@joshtrichards joshtrichards added feature: dav feature: caldav Related to CalDAV internals labels Aug 30, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
0. Needs triage Pending check for reproducibility or if it fits our roadmap 25-feedback bug feature: caldav Related to CalDAV internals feature: dav
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants