Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 65100 invoked from network); 24 Jun 2009 16:31:53 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 24 Jun 2009 16:31:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 53515 invoked by uid 500); 24 Jun 2009 16:32:04 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 53429 invoked by uid 500); 24 Jun 2009 16:32:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@couchdb.apache.org Delivered-To: moderator for dev@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 66398 invoked by uid 99); 24 Jun 2009 11:07:06 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy) Message-Id: From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?David_Z=FClke?= To: dev@couchdb.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3) Subject: ID encoding inconsistencies Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:06:34 +0200 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.935.3) X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de;david.zuelke@bitextender.com;1245841615;84425b85; X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Ohai, whilst playing around with some url encoding edge cases (for http://www.phpcouch.org/) , I came across the following two issues: a) for a document "foo" with attachment "bar/baz", both "foo/bar/baz" and "foo/bar%2Fbaz" work. I believe that only the latter should be possible as that would be consistent with other IDs (design documents, view names and document IDs) b) if a design document contains a view with a slash, then calling "/ testdb/_design/lolcats/_view/all%2Fyour%2Fbase" works, while "/testdb/ _design/lolcats/_view/all/your/base" gives an HTTP 405 Method Not Allowed response instead of a 404 which I think would be correct and/ or consistent with the other cases where IDs are not found, right? It should act like when calling a non-existant view I think. Should I open tickets for these two, or am I just overlooking something obvious? Cheers, - David