+1 as well for 409 On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 1:43 PM Ryan Blue <rdb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +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 >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>
