+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 >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>
