use 500 as default status code for errors, instead of 400 #140
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
lingyan
force-pushed
the
defaultErrorStatusCode
branch
from
db3b2fa to
41f145d
Compare
|
Weird. 👍 |
|
I think there are other breaking changes that we would want to get in to 1.0. Is this actually a breaking change? |
|
Yeah. Theoretically it is a breaking change, if some app monitors the error status code from fetcher :) This is not urgent though. We can wait for other breaking changes to publish 1.0. |
|
👍 |
|
CLA is valid! |
1 similar comment
|
CLA is valid! |
|
👍 |
|
Based on discussions, we will release this in a patch release, as a bug fix. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
400 is for client error. Propose to use 500 instead. Theoretically, this is a breaking change. We can make it a non breaking change, by allowing people to configure default error code to return. But don't think it is worth the trouble. We can go 1.0 with this :)
@Vijar @mridgway @redonkulus