Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Be clear about the state of resources after a failure #541

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 12, 2018

Conversation

duglin
Copy link
Contributor

@duglin duglin commented Jul 9, 2018

I'd like to keep the first MUST but if people are afraid that we can't
due to it technically being a breaking spec change, then we can drop it
down to a SHOULD. But since 4xx's are means to be error for "bad input"
I figured brokers should catch these before any real processing on the
resource happened.

Signed-off-by: Doug Davis dug@us.ibm.com

@cfdreddbot
Copy link

Hey duglin!

Thanks for submitting this pull request! I'm here to inform the recipients of the pull request that you and the commit authors have already signed the CLA.

@mattmcneeney
Copy link
Contributor

mattmcneeney commented Jul 10, 2018

@duglin Does this text make sense given that we use 410 Gone in the spec for delete operations with the description The Platform MUST consider this response a success and forget about the resource.?

I agree with this text for all other 4xx and 5xx codes.

@duglin
Copy link
Contributor Author

duglin commented Jul 11, 2018

I think a 410 is still ok with this text because its still "Gone" after the broker responded with a "410 Gone". Its still semantically in the same state. Right?

@duglin
Copy link
Contributor Author

duglin commented Jul 12, 2018

Updates the text based on yesterday's meeting

I'd like to keep the first MUST but if people are afraid that we can't
due to it technically being a breaking spec change, then we can drop it
down to a SHOULD.  But since 4xx's are means to be error for "bad input"
I figured brokers should catch these before any real processing on the
resource happened.

Signed-off-by: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
@mattmcneeney mattmcneeney merged commit 2ded9ba into openservicebrokerapi:master Jul 12, 2018
duglin pushed a commit to duglin/servicebroker that referenced this pull request Aug 14, 2018
Inconsistency introduced by: openservicebrokerapi#541

Fixes openservicebrokerapi#563

Signed-off-by: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
@duglin duglin deleted the failure branch August 23, 2018 18:14
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

6 participants