indygreg added a comment.
In https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D1850#31404, @joerg.sonnenberger wrote: > Which status code shall we use then, just plain 400? Good question. We use `400` for parts of hgweb. But not the wire protocol parts. And the use of `400` should arguably be avoided because it is supposed to mean the HTTP request message itself was malformed. A lot of people (including our uses in hgweb) extend `400` to mean things like the query string parameters are invalid. RFC 7231 is still vague in its wording and does seem to allow liberal use of this status code. That's probably because of common use of `400` in the wild. In the wire protocol today, it looks like we use `200` and a `Content-Type: application/hg-error` to indicate error. I think this is what we should use here (assuming existing client codes handles the error sanely). It should, since `httppeer.py` always checks for this content-type as part of processing every HTTP response. For the next submission, please add a test showing that an `hg` operation hitting this error in the context of `hg pull` or `hg clone` does something reasonable. REPOSITORY rHG Mercurial REVISION DETAIL https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D1850 To: joerg.sonnenberger, #hg-reviewers, indygreg Cc: indygreg, mercurial-devel _______________________________________________ Mercurial-devel mailing list Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel
