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.wag...@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
