Le 24/03/2025 à 22:08, Laurent Bercot a écrit :
>> It turns out, it seems, tipidee rejects all PATCH requests, even if
>> the CGI script is meant to handle them?
>> My impression from inspecting the source code is that it is indeed
>> omitted, and it returns an error if found.
>> Assuming my assessment is correct, would it be reasonable to request
>> that feature? Otherwise, is there a possible workaround?
>
> Your assessment is correct: allowing clients to remotely modify content
> via the web server is a huge can of worms, and I wrote tipidee to serve
> content that would *not* be modified by the tipideed process itself -
> which is why I did not implement the PUT or DELETE methods.
>
> I was not aware of the existence of PATCH, but it seems like it is
> pretty similar to PUT.
>
> Looking at the documentation of the Wallabag API, it looks like it
> doesn't only need PATCH, but also PUT and DELETE. This makes me uneasy,
> but since POST is supported in the context of transmitting content to
> a CGI script, I suppose I can make it so PATCH, PUT and DELETE are also
> accepted if the resource is a CGI script. The script would be entirely
> responsible for any content modifications.
>
> I'll see if I can add that to the next version of tipidee. Thanks for
> the suggestion.
Sorry for being slightly off-topic. I'm essentially lurking on this
list. I find this discussion intriguing because it is the first time I
read about an actual implemention of the PUT, DELETE and PATCH methods,
which, AFAIK, do not have HTML interfaces, and, therefore are not
implemented in browsers.
-- Didier
Received on Wed Mar 26 2025 - 10:37:15 CET