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 >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>>
