Re: [CalendarServer-users] Has UID/GUID syntax changed from CalendarServer-5.2.2 to 6.0
I happened to read this: https://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/calendarserver-users/2015-March/00258... *Andre LaBranche wrote:*
The path component in /calendars/users/____ is the UID value from the user record, which typically looks like a shortname.
You can also use /principals/__uids__/____, where the missing component is the GUID. In cases where GUID is not specified in the record, the UID value appears to be usable instead.
Hmm... isn't this wrong? It doesn't seem to be what my 6.0 server does. Rather it's: /calendars/users/<shortname> /principals/__uids__/<uid> 4.x had a fallback to use GUID if UID was not specified, but 6.0 requires UID to be defined. /Peter
Hi, I don’t think I said that UID isn’t required, I said GUID isn’t required. I just verified that a record with no ‘guid’ attribute and a ‘uid’ value of ‘foo’ works fine, using either e.g. /principals/users/foo or /principals/__uids__/foo. -dre
On Jun 2, 2015, at 7:43 AM, Peter Mogensen <apm@one.com> wrote:
I happened to read this:
https://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/calendarserver-users/2015-March/00258...
*Andre LaBranche wrote:*
The path component in /calendars/users/____ is the UID value from the user record, which typically looks like a shortname.
You can also use /principals/__uids__/____, where the missing component is the GUID. In cases where GUID is not specified in the record, the UID value appears to be usable instead.
Hmm... isn't this wrong? It doesn't seem to be what my 6.0 server does.
Rather it's:
/calendars/users/<shortname>
/principals/__uids__/<uid>
4.x had a fallback to use GUID if UID was not specified, but 6.0 requires UID to be defined.
/Peter
_______________________________________________ calendarserver-users mailing list calendarserver-users@lists.macosforge.org https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/calendarserver-users
… but my understanding of how short name is used was probably wrong. /principals/users/foo works where shortname is foo, not where uid is foo. -dre
On Jun 2, 2015, at 10:59 AM, Andre LaBranche <dre@apple.com> wrote:
Hi,
I don’t think I said that UID isn’t required, I said GUID isn’t required. I just verified that a record with no ‘guid’ attribute and a ‘uid’ value of ‘foo’ works fine, using either e.g. /principals/users/foo or /principals/__uids__/foo.
-dre
On Jun 2, 2015, at 7:43 AM, Peter Mogensen <apm@one.com> wrote:
I happened to read this:
https://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/calendarserver-users/2015-March/00258...
*Andre LaBranche wrote:*
The path component in /calendars/users/____ is the UID value from the user record, which typically looks like a shortname.
You can also use /principals/__uids__/____, where the missing component is the GUID. In cases where GUID is not specified in the record, the UID value appears to be usable instead.
Hmm... isn't this wrong? It doesn't seem to be what my 6.0 server does.
Rather it's:
/calendars/users/<shortname>
/principals/__uids__/<uid>
4.x had a fallback to use GUID if UID was not specified, but 6.0 requires UID to be defined.
/Peter
_______________________________________________ calendarserver-users mailing list calendarserver-users@lists.macosforge.org https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/calendarserver-users
_______________________________________________ calendarserver-users mailing list calendarserver-users@lists.macosforge.org https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/calendarserver-users
On 2015-06-02 19:59, Andre LaBranche wrote:
Hi,
I don’t think I said that UID isn’t required, I said GUID isn’t required. I just verified that a record with no ‘guid’ attribute and a ‘uid’ value of ‘foo’ works fine, using either e.g. /principals/users/foo or /principals/__uids__/foo.
-dre
I think my main point was that it's /principals/__uids__/<uid> and /principals/users/<shortname> not /principals/__uids__/<guid> and /principals/user/<uid> Which makes a big difference in systems where all 3 are defined. /Peter
participants (2)
-
Andre LaBranche
-
Peter Mogensen