Good catch, Youngrae! I consider this to be a bug fix, so I do not
think we need to worry about compatibility issues.

On Thu, Nov 5, 2026 at 8:39 AM Dmitri Bourlatchkov via dev
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi JB, Youngrae,
>
> I totally agree that this change is correct and it is not an backward
> compatibility issue.
>
> Nice catch on adding the 400 response to the API spec!
>
> I approved PR [5909] in GH.
>
> As usual for API-level changes, let's give it some more time for reviews.
> Merging late on Nov 6 seems reasonable to me, if there are no
> further comments.
>
> Cheers,
> Dmitri.
>
> [5909] https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/5909
>
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2026 at 4:23 AM youngrae kim <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Hi JB,
> >
> > Thanks for the review and the +1.
> >
> > Good point on the 400 response.
> > I have added it to createCatalog in the Management API spec in the latest
> > commit of the PR: the response is declared with the description
> > "The request is invalid, for example an unsupported or incomplete storage
> > or connection configuration".
> > No model or generated interface changes, the generated code compiles as
> > before.
> >
> > If there are no further objections I will leave the PR for the committers
> > to merge.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Youngrae Kim
> >
> > 2026년 11월 5일 (목) 오후 5:31, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]>님이 작성:
> >
> > > Hi Youngrae,
> > >
> > > Good call from Dmitri asking you to bring the discussion on the list :)
> > >
> > > I'm +1 on the change. Returning a 500 for invalid client input is a bug
> > > imho, not part of the API contract, and no client should rely on getting
> > a
> > > 500 for a malformed request. I don't see any compatibility concern
> > > switching to 400. Furthermore, ConnectionConfigInfo is still
> > experimental,
> > > so no problem to change it ;)
> > >
> > > I also agree with documenting authenticationParameters in the description
> > > rather than adding it to required. That way the models don't change for
> > > existing clients.
> > >
> > > I have just one small thing (not blocker): createCatalog in the
> > Management
> > > API doesn't declare a 400 response at all. The endpoint already returns
> > 400
> > > for invalid storage config, and with your PR it will also do so for
> > invalid
> > > connection config, so it would be good to document it.
> > >
> > > I'm fine to merge if no objections here.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > JB
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 5, 2026 at 6:12 AM youngrae kim <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > Dmitri asked me to bring PR #5909 [1] to the list because it changes
> > the
> > > > HTTP status code of two
> > > > Management API error responses.
> > > >
> > > > Today, creating an EXTERNAL catalog with an invalid
> > connectionConfigInfo
> > > > fails with
> > > > 500 Internal Server Error in two cases, although both are client input
> > > > errors:
> > > >
> > > > 1. a connectionType or authenticationType that is not in
> > > > SUPPORTED_CATALOG_CONNECTION_TYPES /
> > > >    SUPPORTED_EXTERNAL_CATALOG_AUTHENTICATION_TYPES (an
> > > > IllegalStateException escapes), and
> > > > 2. a request without authenticationParameters (a NullPointerException
> > > > escapes; the spec only
> > > >    marks connectionType as required).
> > > >
> > > > The PR makes both return 400 Bad Request. The messages for case 1 are
> > > > unchanged; case 2 gets
> > > > "authenticationParameters is required for an external catalog". The
> > spec
> > > > description of
> > > > ConnectionConfigInfo now states that authenticationParameters is
> > > required.
> > > > Valid requests are
> > > > unaffected, and nothing else in the error handling changes. Issue:
> > #5908
> > > > [2].
> > > >
> > > > The PR has one approval (Dmitri). If nobody objects within a few days I
> > > > would ask for it to be
> > > > merged as is; happy to adjust if there are concerns about the code or
> > the
> > > > message.
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/5909
> > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/5908
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Youngrae Kim
> > > >
> > >
> >

Reply via email to