Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Make resource creation more exact and testable #263

Merged
merged 4 commits into from May 13, 2021
Merged

Conversation

RubenVerborgh
Copy link
Contributor

I found the language to be inaccurate (PUT and PATCH requests), but also not testable.
There is no way to test the desires of a client; but we can test the behavior of the server.
So, in my opinion, it's the server that MUST, not the client.

Copy link
Member

@csarven csarven left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think mention of client can be omitted altogether. Also focus on effective request URI.

Changing the requirement's focus (from clients) to servers is perhaps most useful for PATCH because it changes resource creation from MAY (RFC5789) to MUST. For PUT and POST, the requirement is actually not needed because it is already covered by RFC 7231.

protocol.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
protocol.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
RubenVerborgh and others added 2 commits May 12, 2021 23:17
Co-authored-by: Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>
Co-authored-by: Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>
@RubenVerborgh
Copy link
Contributor Author

@csarven Agree with all.

@csarven
Copy link
Member

csarven commented May 12, 2021

Should we still guide (informative/note) the clients along the lines of:

Clients can use PUT and PATCH requests to assign a URI to a resource. Clients can use POST requests to have the server assign a URI to a resource.

@RubenVerborgh
Copy link
Contributor Author

Yeah, I did like that original intent. Perhaps as a note (frame?) indeed then below the two MUSTs?

@csarven
Copy link
Member

csarven commented May 12, 2021

Added commit. Have a look. Interesting that GitHub doesn't allow me to request a review from you (sort of obviously).

@RubenVerborgh
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks, @csarven. Approved!

@csarven csarven merged commit 6b7c767 into main May 13, 2021
@csarven csarven deleted the fix/resource-creation branch May 13, 2021 10:51
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
category: editorial Concerns phrasing/wording
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants