| Hi Ilya
Based on the register of codes 452 isn’t assigned. (Unfortunately my Cyrillic isn’t good enough to work through the endnote reference for 452)
To my read (of the name) 452 code would be recorded under 400 under current code point utilisation.
You could author an ID proposing IANA issue 452 officially (whether with that name from Russian Wikipedia or another). I would suggest clearly identifying that: 1: this response code MUST be used where the request is correctly formatted (as per specification) however further processing results in discovering that the request is in fact invalid 2: this code SHOULD NOT be used in cases where another code point provides a clearer response to the user (eg 403 would be a better use for a permissions failure) 3: this “business logic” code MUST include a body providing an explanation of the cause of the error including the key and reason for failure
(Feel free to ignore my advice here, but crafting this way fits into my mental model of how this code should be used - if issued)
Others may provide other advice.
Regards Alexander
Alexander Neilson Neilson Productions Limited 021 329 681 alexander@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx On 16/08/2019, at 00:45, Илья Страхов <ilya.strahov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi AlexanderYou understand correctly, I think it would be useful to explicitlyseparate two situations: request validation with HTTP error code 400and other business logic errors. Of course, the new code can beinterpreted broadly, but for clarification, you can give an exhaustiveanswer in the body. I am quite suitable definition that I found inthe Russian Wikipedia 452 Bad send request ("Sent unacceptable data")But for some reason there are no references to the source. Perhaps youknow something about the code 452 ?https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BA_%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%8F%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F_HTTP
Hi IlyaLooking at your list I think were you simply wanting a different 4XX statuscode that would be used for any rejection above the HTTP server itself andyou would still be providing a response message in the body to detail theproblem?(or to clarify you want another 400 which separates the two levels:e.g.mandatory key (type int) provided as string = 400 response as filtered byHTTP server during deserialisationmandatory key (type int) provided however the value is not permitted forthe user to access = 4XX response (new code) as handled by internal system?If I have this correct I think because of the range of scenarios this newcode would be used for is so wide then the explanation would need to bepassed to the user / parsed carefully there is less benefit to adding anadditional code because either way the request was malformed / incorrect1) could Not create a dependent entity, because the entity to which theclient refers is not the essence. Data has been out of sync betweensystems. (400 or 409)2) Transferred amount (number, pieces, etc) cannot be accepted. (400)3) the User is blocked. (403)4) Heated discussion on the absence of an object, instead of 404 you cangive a newcode. (404, 410)5) you Cannot set the passed status for an entity. (405, 403, 400)6) the Entity has already been activated. (409)I have thrown in some codes above that I think could be used for thesesituations (based on my understanding on what you were suggesting), becauseof the wide proposed use of the new code I would tend to lean away fromissuing a new code thinking the current codes provide a fairly good rangeof options to respond which isn't made clearer by the new "business logic"4XX code and the balance with getting implementation by other systems vsusing the existing codes isn't yet weighted enough in the favour of thisparticular new code.I am happy to be convinced if there is a clear suggestion of a code withclear meaning where the difference isn't only dependent on the structure ofthe system handling the query.2019-08-15 14:01 GMT+03:00, Илья Страхов <ilya.strahov@xxxxxxxxx>:The correct dimension, data type, syntax are passed to the application
side. In the process of processing, business logic errors may occur,
for each service there may be different options depending on the
specifics: warehouse accounting, payments, charging, etc. 1) could Not
create a dependent entity, because the entity to which the client
refers is not the essence. Data has been out of sync between systems.
2) Transferred amount (number, pieces, etc) cannot be accepted. 3) the
User is blocked. 4) Heated discussion on the absence of an object,
instead of 404 you can give a newcode. 5) you Cannot set the passed
status for an entity. 6) the Entity has already been activated.
2019-08-15 12:18 GMT+03:00, Alexander Neilson <alexander@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
On 15/08/2019, at 20:12, Илья Страхов <ilya.strahov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello.
I want to hear the opinion of the community and offer a separate HTTP
code for the situation when the client has sent data that on the side
of business logic is processed with an error.
An example in the context of the REST.
1) If the client did not pass a required key or syntax error, then the
HTTP 400 response. It's okay.
2) If the client passed the key and value, further data processing led
to an error when the entity cannot be created/modified for reasons at
the application logic level. For this case, I propose to make a new
HTTP code.
Can you please expand more on what kind of application logic error?
For example if the value is invalid for that key (whether out of range,
wrong type, is external reference where reference doesn’t exist) then it
seems to me that 400 would still be suitable.
So if you could elaborate on what sort of different failure you are
handling
when processing the data and how this would be clearly defined for
another
4XX code to be usefully handled by processing consumers this may assist
others in looking at supporting this suggestion.
Regards
Alexander
Alexander Neilson
Neilson Productions Limited
021 329 681
alexander@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
