You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The scheduling freebusy-requests were completely untested and didn't work at all.
logic was human-written, test-code by Claude
Prompt: look into https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6638#appendix-B.5
and make a pure unit test with a mocked-up response to a freebusy scheduling
request, exercising the handling part of it. This will break with a
NotImplementedError as for now. Only fix the test, do not fix the code logic.
Consider the TODO-comment in response.py, line 247, and give me an opinion on
weather it makes sense to reuse the _find_objects_and_props for scheduling
response or if it's better to create a dedicated separate method for this.
Copy file name to clipboardExpand all lines: CHANGELOG.md
+1Lines changed: 1 addition & 0 deletions
Display the source diff
Display the rich diff
Original file line number
Diff line number
Diff line change
@@ -35,6 +35,7 @@ This project should adhere to [Semantic Versioning](https://semver.org/spec/v2.0
35
35
36
36
### Test framework, compatibility hints, documentation, examples
37
37
38
+
* Open-ended time-range search compatibility hints: new `search.time-range.open`, `search.time-range.open.end`, `search.time-range.open.start`, and `search.time-range.open.start.duration` features (RFC4791 section 9.9). Old `no_search_openended` flag and `search.time-range.todo.duration`/`search.time-range.todo.open-start` features migrated. `testTodoSearch` updated to use `is_supported("search.time-range.open.end")` instead of the old compatibility flag.
38
39
* RFC 6638 scheduling feature-detection infrastructure: new `scheduling`, `scheduling.mailbox`, and `scheduling.calendar-user-address-set` compatibility hints; legacy `no_scheduling` flags migrated. Default scheduling hints set for all the servers tested.
39
40
* Calendar owner example (`examples/calendar_owner_examples.py`) demonstrating how to retrieve the owner of a calendar via `DAV:owner` and resolve their calendar-user address. `testFindCalendarOwner` now exercises the full owner → principal → `get_vcal_address()` chain. Closes https://github.com/python-caldav/caldav/issues/544
40
41
*`testInviteAndRespond` implemented end-to-end: organizer creates an event, invites an attendee, attendee accepts, and the organizer verifies the updated `PARTSTAT`. Per-server compatibility flags applied for known quirks (Baikal, Cyrus, SOGo).
## TODO: the purpose of the xml_parsers was to consolidate common code to be used by sync and async code paths, to avoid duplicated code. Why cannot this code snippet be used for async? The code here is very similar to _parse_calendar_query_response - we should consolidate common code
0 commit comments