+1 for the updated 409 code.

On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 1:41 PM Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1. Thanks Eduard!
>
> Yufei
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 3:46 AM Eduard Tudenhöfner <
> etudenhoef...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> I have updated the spec to use 409 in order to indicate the
>> NamespaceNotEmptyException
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 7:12 PM Christian Thiel <
>> christian.t.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +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
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>

Reply via email to