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

refactor: RFC 9457 obsoletes 7807, refer to it #773

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 17, 2023

Conversation

scop
Copy link
Contributor

@scop scop commented Aug 14, 2023

No substantial changes that would run at odds with the elaboration in the guidelines that I can see.

No substantial changes that would run at odds with the elaboration in
the guidelines.
@tfrauenstein
Copy link
Member

👍

@ePaul
Copy link
Member

ePaul commented Sep 15, 2023

Thanks for the pointer, I missed this new RFC.

There are these changes from RFC-7807 to RFC-9457 (mentioned in the Appendix D) :

  • Section 4.2 introduces a registry of common problem type URIs

    The registry so far doesn't have any types which seem to be generally useful (except the default about:blank).

  • Section 3 clarifies how multiple problems should be treated

    • For multiple problems of the same type, use an extension with more problem objects in it (only the relevant fields).
    • For multiple problems of different types, just keep the most important/urgent one.
  • Section 3.1.1 provides guidance for using type URIs that cannot be dereferenced

    It also contains this recommendation:

    As a result, it is RECOMMENDED that absolute URIs be used in "type" when possible and that when relative URIs are used, they include the full path (e.g., "/types/123").

    This goes contrary to our existing recommendation to not use absolute problem types (though it fits the "use full path" one).
    I suggest we discuss in our next API guild meeting whether it makes sense to adjust our guideline here. (Related: Improvements for Problem guideline (176) #763)

@tkrop
Copy link
Member

tkrop commented Sep 18, 2023

Section 3 clarifies how multiple problems should be treated

For multiple problems of the same type, use an extension with more problem objects in it (only the relevant fields).
For multiple problems of different types, just keep the most important/urgent one.

Section 3.1.1 provides guidance for using type URIs that cannot be dereferenced

@ePaul I don't think that the difference is so big compared to the short sentences in https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7807#section-3.1. We deliberately decided to not follow the convention of absolute URIs to relief our API designers from providing a registry of error types. I still support this decision.

@tkrop
Copy link
Member

tkrop commented Oct 2, 2023

👍

@tkrop tkrop merged commit 9382597 into zalando:main Oct 17, 2023
2 checks passed
@scop scop deleted the refactor/rfc-9457 branch October 30, 2023 10:27
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants