Add optional 'extensions' entry to errors #407
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Made some edits, but this is definitely a straight forward improvement. Thanks for drafting this after the WG meeting! |
This was referenced Mar 7, 2018
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
As discussed on the last WG meetup it makes sense to define some common error properties like:
code,category, etc. I think such initiative should be lead by public API owners and required broader discussion.However, I think we could make this process more painless by proactively preventing possible name clashes.
For example, if a future version of spec will defines
codeas a string it can break some public API that use integers for error codes.Another alternative would be to recommend prefixing additional fields with
x-(e.g.x-code) but I think it's better to reuseextensionsfrom response object.