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

Test for POST to non-existing resource #64

Merged
merged 30 commits into from
Jan 10, 2022
Merged

Conversation

kjetilk
Copy link
Collaborator

@kjetilk kjetilk commented Dec 28, 2021

Copy link
Collaborator

@csarven csarven left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think testing a particular content type is equivalent to testing for particular resource types (derived primarily from URI path sending with slash). The difference in this manifest with the manifest in #62 is that the former tests only text/turtle the latter tests both container and non-container.

Would it be meaningful to test other media types of concrete RDF syntaxes or even a random media type?

@kjetilk
Copy link
Collaborator Author

kjetilk commented Dec 29, 2021

Yes, that makes sense, so I added them.

Copy link
Collaborator

@edwardsph edwardsph left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You haven't sent any body to the server so is it possible that a server will respond with another error e.g. 400 before it checks if the resource exists?

protocol/solid-protocol-test-manifest.ttl Show resolved Hide resolved
protocol/writing-resource/post-target-not-found.feature Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
protocol/writing-resource/post-target-not-found.feature Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
kjetilk and others added 18 commits January 7, 2022 22:22
…tainer

Test that server protects non-empty container
Test Allow headers for GET and HEAD
@kjetilk
Copy link
Collaborator Author

kjetilk commented Jan 8, 2022

OK, this should take all comments into account, thanks a lot!

@kjetilk kjetilk requested a review from edwardsph January 8, 2022 01:35
Copy link
Collaborator

@edwardsph edwardsph left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@kjetilk kjetilk merged commit d44f2cc into main Jan 10, 2022
@kjetilk kjetilk deleted the proposal/post-target-not-found branch January 10, 2022 21:41
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants