Thanks for sharing this feedback from developers, Dragos. Like the PR from Jiang, this is a one line change in terms of the status code. Cancelling the request is harder but could be accomplished by attaching a deadline on an activation request and allowing the invokers to discard them on receipt if they're past their deadline.
I agree for a request/response model, downgrading a synchronous request to an asynchronous one isn't ideal. -r On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 9:41 PM Dascalita Dragos <ddrag...@gmail.com> wrote: > While we're on the status code topic I'd like to share some feedback we got > from developers using OpenWhisk. > > They have complained that for blocking activations, when the system can't > execute the action, they get a 202 instead. The feedback was that it's not > correct for a system to override the intention of the developer, and that > the correct response should be an error status code. The system should also > stop the execution to avoid wasting resources. Since OpenWhisk actions can > be invoked from a browser too (HTML content, or other content type that can > be displayed by the browser), dealing with a 202 becomes complicated, and > it's not in line with its purpose either [1] "cases where another process > or server handles the request, or for batch processing". > > [1] - https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Status/202 > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 7:00 AM Rodric Rabbah <rod...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Thanks Jiang for addressing this long standing bug. > > > > I reviewed the PR. The 400 status code for developer errors also matches > > the web action response. I think the only real debate is whether > > application error should be 207 or 400. If a web action responds with an > > error and no explicit status code, is it treated as a 20x response. So I > > find the change in your PR consistent. > > > > There may be some effects to check in the npm client and the wsk (or > other > > clis). > > > > -r > > > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 1:19 AM 蒋鹏程 <jiang.pengch...@navercorp.com> > wrote: > > > > > Dear whiskers: > > > > > > Currently we are using 502 BadGateway for ApplicationError and > > > DeveloperError, which is not very appropriate I think, so I submit a PR > > to > > > change this: > > > > > > 1. Use MultiStatus for ApplicationError > > > 2. Use BadRequest for DeveloperError > > > > > > Any comments and suggestions are welcomed > > > > > > refs: > > > 1. > https://github.com/apache/openwhisk/issues/645#issuecomment-232534948 > > > 2. https://github.com/apache/openwhisk/pull/5047 > > > > > > Best Regards > > > Jiang Pengcheng > > > > > > > > > > > >
