+1 for the updated 409 code. On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 1:41 PM Yufei Gu <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1. Thanks Eduard! > > Yufei > > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 3:46 AM Eduard Tudenhöfner < > [email protected]> 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 < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> +1 (non-binding) for the updated 409 Code >>> >>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 at 18:30, Ryan Blue <[email protected]> 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 < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> +1 >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 10:17 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> +1 (non binding) >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> JB >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 3:10 PM Eduard Tudenhöfner >>>>>> <[email protected]> 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 >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>
