Re: delete & unlock on previously locked resources

On 5-Nov-08, at 4:09 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

>
> Evert | Rooftop wrote:
>> Hi Guys,
>> Litmus 0.12 added tests for locking unmapped urls. One of the tests  
>> is failing for me, and I have a feeling it might be a bug in  
>> litmus, so I wanted to ask here..
>> test 38: unmapped_lock
>> * LOCK /litmus/unmapped_url (i respond with 201 Created)
>> * DELETE /litmus/unmapped_url (i respond with 204 No Content)
>> test 39: unlock
>> * UNLOCK /litmus/unmapped_url
>> I fail the last unlock with 412 Precondition failed
>> ...
>
> Shouldn't that be a 404?
>
> Please post the full trace (a 412 is only correct if there's a  
> conditional header involved).
>
> BR, Julian
>

A 404 makes more sense, but that also made the litmus test fail. Here  
are the relevant headers (took out the unneeded stuff)

LOCK /litmus/unmapped_url HTTP/1.1
Depth: 0
Timeout: Second-3600

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<lockinfo xmlns='DAV:'>
   <lockscope><exclusive/></lockscope>
   <locktype><write/></locktype><owner>litmus test suite</owner>
</lockinfo>

HTTP/1.1 201 Created
Lock-Token: opaquelocktoken:44445502-4fdd-85ab-b7ea-4f2b040acaac
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<d:prop xmlns:d="DAV:">
   <d:lockdiscovery>
     <d:activelock>
      <d:lockscope><d:exclusive /></d:lockscope>
      <d:locktype><d:write /></d:locktype>
      <d:depth>0</d:depth>
      <d:timeout>Second-1800</d:timeout>
      <d:locktoken>
       <d:href>opaquelocktoken:44445502-4fdd-85ab-b7ea-4f2b040acaac</ 
d:href>
      </d:locktoken>
      <d:owner>litmus test suite</d:owner>
     </d:activelock>
   </d:lockdiscovery>
</d:prop>

DELETE /litmus/unmapped_url HTTP/1.1
If: <http://sabredav.evertpot.com/litmus/unmapped_url>  
(<opaquelocktoken:44445502-4fdd-85ab-b7ea-4f2b040acaac>)

HTTP/1.1 204 No Content


Now test 39 starts:

UNLOCK /litmus/unmapped_url HTTP/1.1
Lock-Token: <opaquelocktoken:44445502-4fdd-85ab-b7ea-4f2b040acaac>

I both tried responding with a 404, and a 412. Both fail the litmus  
test. Would 404 be the appropriate response code here?

Evert