+1 (non-binding) for the updated 409 Code On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 at 18:30, Ryan Blue <rdb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From the issue, it looks like we're using 400 for this because that's what > the Java client was returning as a generic or unhandled error. I don't > think that's a good reason to standardize on 400 now that we are calling > out this error in the spec. Why not choose an error code that distinguishes > it from a bad request? I think that would be better so that we don't have > to rely on checking other fields. > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 9:00 AM Russell Spitzer <russell.spit...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 10:17 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> >> wrote: >> >>> +1 (non binding) >>> >>> Regards >>> JB >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 3:10 PM Eduard Tudenhöfner >>> <etudenhoef...@apache.org> wrote: >>> > >>> > Hey everyone, >>> > >>> > I'd like to hold a quick VOTE on #12518 that improves the >>> documentation around how NamespaceNotEmptyException is treated when a >>> non-empty namespace is deleted. >>> > In such a case we do return a 400 and we also return a 400 on a bad >>> request, thus the client should check the error type to know whether it >>> received a NamespaceNotEmptyException. >>> > >>> > This vote will be open for at least 72 hours. >>> > >>> > [ ] +1 Improve the documentation in the OpenAPI spec >>> > [ ] +0 >>> > [ ] -1 I have concerns because ... >>> > >>> > Kind regards, >>> > Eduard >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >>
