From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com> Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 70A841FF15C for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Wed, 26 Mar 2025 10:55:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 62E1132D7F; Wed, 26 Mar 2025 10:55:20 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <74467ca7-5467-4f0f-879a-182bdb667a16@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 10:54:46 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>, Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> References: <20250321095700.106077-1-l.wagner@proxmox.com> <804e5e3e-5cf0-4d50-8a5d-750342867527@proxmox.com> Content-Language: de-AT, en-US From: Lukas Wagner <l.wagner@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <804e5e3e-5cf0-4d50-8a5d-750342867527@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.011 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [gotify.rs, ietf.org, proxmox.com, webhook.rs] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] applied: [PATCH proxmox 1/2] notify: webhook: gotify: set Content-Length header X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/> List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe> Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com> On 2025-03-25 19:41, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > Am 21.03.25 um 10:56 schrieb Lukas Wagner: >> To quote from RFC 9110 [1]: >> >> A user agent SHOULD send Content-Length in a request when >> the method defines a meaning for enclosed content and it >> is not sending Transfer-Encoding. For example, a user agent >> normally sends Content-Length in a POST request even when >> the value is 0 (indicating empty content). >> A user agent SHOULD NOT send a Content-Length header field >> when the request message does not contain content and the >> method semantics do not anticipate such data. >> >> It seemed like our HTTP client lib did not set the header >> automatically, which is why we should do it manually. >> >> While most services seemed to have worked fine without setting >> the header, some Microsoft services seem to require it >> to accept the webhook request [2]. >> >> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9110#name-content-length >> [2] https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/158827 >> >> Signed-off-by: Lukas Wagner <l.wagner@proxmox.com> >> --- >> proxmox-notify/src/endpoints/gotify.rs | 4 ++++ >> proxmox-notify/src/endpoints/webhook.rs | 19 ++++++++++++++++++- >> 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> > > applied both patches, thanks! > > FWIW, as it was already encoded in the commit message for posterity I'd > have been fine with the comment being a bit shorter, e.g., the link to > the RFC and the last line, but it did not bother me to care amending the > patch and it's not a clear-cut, or at least subjective, so just a nit. The brief quote from the RFC gives good context on *why* the change should be done in a self-contained way without having to go to the RFC text and search for the correct paragraph. IMO it definitely makes sense to have it in the commit message. -- - Lukas _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel