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
Ref RFC 6638 §3.2-3.3
Schedule-Tag implementation:
- `save()` and `add_event()` capture the Schedule-Tag from the
response header and stores it in `self.props` (same logic with etag).
- `save()` sends `If-Schedule-Tag-Match` or `If-Match`-header if
etag or schedule-tag is set.
- raises `ScheduleTagMismatchError` or `ETagMismatchError` on 412.
- `_reply_to_invite_request()`: when the server auto-schedules the event
into the attendee's calendar (`scheduling.auto-schedule` supported),
search all attendee calendars first and update the existing copy in
place to preserve the server-assigned Schedule-Tag. Fall through to
`add_event()` only for non-auto-schedule servers.
- Assume SEQUENCE:0 default when SEQUENCE property is absent (RFC 5546
section 2.1.4 requires incrementing for significant changes).
test: add failing tests for Schedule-Tag support (RFC 6638)
Also adds design docs:
- docs/design/TODO_SCHEDULE_TAG.md (analysis and implementation plan,
refs #660)
- docs/design/TODO_COMPATIBILITY_HINTS.md (FeatureSet cleanup analysis,
refs #659)
The schedule-tag logic was predominantly hand-written (with some
trivial bugfixing done by Claude). Claude contributed with design
suggestions, which have been partly followed. Test code is predominantly
AI-written.
prompt: (exact prompt is lost, but I was discussing the schedule-tags,
and the output is in the new file docs/design/TODO_SCHEDULE_TAG.md)
prompt: Please write up test code (unit tests + integration tests) on the
schedule tags. Don't fix the code yet.
prompt: Please write up test code (unit tests + integration tests) on the
schedule tags. Don't fix the code yet.
followup-prompts: (discussions on test breakages. While debugging,
Claude has been insisting on searching for the Schedule-Tag by using
a PropFind if it wasn't included in the headers, but that does not
make sense)
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Copy file name to clipboardExpand all lines: AI-POLICY.md
+18-3Lines changed: 18 additions & 3 deletions
Display the source diff
Display the rich diff
Original file line number
Diff line number
Diff line change
@@ -4,9 +4,25 @@
4
4
5
5
The most important rule: be honest and inform about it!
6
6
7
-
Also: keep a log of the prompts used - prompts may be included in the
7
+
Keep a log of the prompts used - prompts should preferably be included in the
8
8
git commits.
9
9
10
+
Tools should generally be used for improving the quality of the
11
+
project, not for rapidly adding new features.
12
+
13
+
Keep a log of the prompts used - prompts should be included
14
+
verbatimely in the git commits as long as it's possible without making
15
+
the messages too messy. When relevant, chat-output may also need to
16
+
be included. The `docs/design`-folder can be used for dumping
17
+
AI-generated design documents, code reviews, prompts that are too
18
+
large for being included in the commit message, etc.
19
+
20
+
Keep it clear what is human-written vs what is AI-written. In a
21
+
feature-branch, separate AI-commits and human-commits is preferable.
22
+
Those should most often be squashed together before including it in
23
+
the main branch, with a notice in the commit message on what parts o
24
+
the commit is AI-generated.
25
+
10
26
## Transparency matters
11
27
12
28
If you've spent hours, perhaps a full day of your time writing up a
@@ -32,8 +48,7 @@ explain in details why I'm rejecting the pull request.
32
48
33
49
It's fine to ask the AI for help to analyze a bug and create a fix for
34
50
it. By discovering the bug, reproducing it and testing it you're
35
-
adding real value to the project - just be transparent about AI usage
36
-
and do not take offence if the code changes are rejected, or completely
51
+
adding real value to the project - just remember to be honest, if you have no clue what Claude did and why it solves the bug, then inform! Do not take offence if the code changes are rejected, or completely
0 commit comments