ReST - PUT vs PATCH to minimize coupling between client & API when adding new properties - rest

Question

We are building set of new REST APIs.
Let's say we have a resource /users with the following fields:
{
id: 1
email: "test#user.com"
}
Clients implement this API and can then update this resource by sending a new resource representation to PUT /users/1.
Now let's say we add a new property name to the model like so:
{
id: 1
email: "test#user.com"
name: "test user"
}
If the models the existing clients are using are to call our API not updated, then calls to PUT /users/1 will remove the new name property since PUT is supposed to replace the resource. I know that the clients could work straight with the raw json to ensure they always receive any new properties that are added in the API, but that is a lot of extra work, and under normal circumstances clients are going to create their own model representations of the API resources on their side. This means that any time any new property is added, all clients need to update the code/models on their side to make sure they aren't accidentally removing properties. This creates unneeded coupling between systems.
As a way to solve this problem, we are considering not implementing PUT operations at all and switching updates to PATCH where properties that aren't passed in are simply not changed. That seems technically correct, but might not be in the spirit of REST. I am also slightly concerned about client support for the PATCH verb.
How are others solving this problem? Was is the best practice here?

Answer 1

You are in a situation where you need some form of API versioning. The most appropriate way is probably using a new media-type every time you make a change.
This way you can support older versions and a PUT would be perfectly legal.
If you don't want this and just stick to PATCH, PATCH is supported everywhere except if you use ancient browsers. Not something to worry about.

Answer 2

Switching from PUT to PATCH will not fix your problem, IMO. The root cause, IMO, is that clients already consider the data being returned for a representation to follow a certain type. According to Fielding
A REST API should never have “typed” resources that are significant to the client.
(Source)
Instead of using typed resources clients should use content-type negotiation to exchange data. Here, media-type formats that are generic enough to gain widespread adoption are for sure beneficial, certain domains may however require a more specific representation format.
Think of a car-vendor Web page where you can retrieve the data from your preferred car. You, as a human, can easily identify that the data depicts a typical car. However, the media-type you most likely received the data in (HTML) does not state by its syntax or the semantics of its elements that the data describes a car, unless some semantic annotation attributes or elements are present, though you might be able to update the data or use the data elsewhere.
This is possible as HTML ships with a rich specification of its elements and attributes, such as Web forms that not only describe the supported or expected input parameters but also the URI where to send the data to, the representation format to use upon sending (implicitly given by application/x-www-form-urlencoded; may be overwritten by the enctype attribute though) or the HTTP method to use, which is fixed to either GET or POST in HTML. Through this, a server is able to teach a client on how a request needs to be built. As a consequence the client does not need to know anything else besides having to understand the HTTP, URI and HTML specifications.
As Web pages are usually filled with all kinds of unrelated stuff, such as adds, styling information or scripts, and the XML(-like) syntax, which is not every ones favourite, as it may increase the size of the actual payload slightly, most so-called "REST" APIs do want to exchange JSON-based documents. While plain JSON is not an ideal representation format, as it does not ship with link-support at all, it is though very popular. Certain additions such as JSON Hyper-Schema (application/schema+json hyper-schema) or JSON Hypertext Application-Language (HAL) (application/hal+json) add support for links and link-relation. These can be used to render data received from the server as-is. However, if you want a response to automatically drive your application state (i.e. to dynamically draw the GUI with the processed data) a more specific representation format is needed, that can be parsed by your client and act accordingly as it understands what the server wants it to do with it (= affordance). If you like to instruct a client on how to build a request support for other media-types such as hal-forms or ion need to be supported. Certain media-types furthermore allow you to use a concept called profiles, that allow you to annotate a resource with a semantic type. HAL JSON i.e. does support something like that where the Content-Type header may now contain a value such as application/hal+json;profile=http://schema.org/Car that hints the media-type processor that the payload follows the definition of the given profile and may thus apply further validity checks.
As the representation format should be generic enough to gain widespread usage, and URIs itself shouldn't hint a client as well what kind of data to expect, an other mechanism needs to be used. Link relation names are basically an annotation for URIs that tell a client about the purpose of a certain link. A pageable collection might return links annotated with first, prev, next and last which are pretty obvious what they do. Other links might be hinted with prefetch, that hint a client that a resource can be loaded right after loading the current resource finished as it is very likely that the client will retrieve this resource next. Such media-types, however, should be either standardized (defined in a proposal or RFC and registerd with IANA) or follow the schema proposed by Web linking, (i.e. as used by Dublin Core). A client that just uses the URI for an invoked link-relation name will still work in case the server changes its URI scheme instead of attempting to parse some parameters from the URI itself.
In regards to de/coupling in a distributed system a certain amount of coupling has to exist otherwise parties wont be able to communicate at all. Though the point here is, the coupling should be based on well-defined and standardized formats that plenty of clients may support instead of exchanging specific representation formats only a very limited number of clients support (in worst case only the own client). Instead of directly coupling to the API and using an undefined JSON-based syntax (maybe with external documentation of the semantics of the respective fields) the coupling should now occur on the media-types parties can use to exchange the format. Here, not the question of which media-type to support should be asked but how many you want to support. The more media-types your client or server supports, the more likely it is to interact with other peers in the distributed system. On the grand-scheme of things, you want a server to be able to server a plethora of clients while a single client should be able to interact with (in best case) every server without the need for constant adoptions.
So, if you really want to decouple clients from servers, you should take a closer look at how the Web actually works and try to mimic its interaction model onto your application layer. As "Uncle Bob" Robert C. Martin mentioned
An architecture is about intent! (Source)
and the intention behind the REST architecture is the decoupling of clients from servers/services. As such, supporting multiple media-types (or defining your own-one that is generic enough to reach widespread adoption), looking up URIs just via their accompanying link-relation names and relying on content-type negotiation as well as relying only on the provided data may help you to achieve the degree of decoupling you are looking for.
All nice and well in theory, but so far every rest api I encountered in my career had predefined contracts that changed over time.
The problem here is, that almost all of those so called "REST APIs" are RPC services at its heart which should not be termed "REST" to start with - this is though a community issue. Usually such APIs ship with external documentation (i.e. Swagger) that just re-introduce the same problems classical RPC solutions, such as CORBA, RMI or SOAP, suffer from. The documentation may be seen as IDL in that process without the strict need for skeleton classes, though most "frameworks" use some kind of typed data classes that will either ignore the recently introduced field (in best case) or totally blow up on invocation.
One of the problems REST suffers from is, that most people haven't read Fieldings thesis and therefore don't see the big picture REST tries to establish but claim to know what REST is and therefore mix up things and call their services RESTful which lead to a situation where REST != REST. The ones pointing out what a REST architecture is and how one might achieve it are called out as dreamers and unworldly when the ones proclaiming the wrong term (RPC over HTTP = REST) continue to do so adding to the confusion of especially the ones just learning the whole matter.
I admit that developing a true REST architecture is really, really hard as it is just too easy to introduce some form of coupling. Hence, a very careful design needs to be done that needs time and also costs money. Money plenty of companies can't or don't want to spend, especially in a domain where new technologies evolve on a regular basis and the ones responsible for developing such solutions often leave the company before the whole process had finished.
Just saying it shouldn’t be ‘typed’ is not really a viable solution
Well, how often did you need to change your browser as it couldn't interact with a Web page? I don't talk about CSS-stuff or browser-specific CSS or JS stuff. How often needed the Web to change in the last 2-3 decades? Similar to the Web, the REST architecture is intended for long-lasting applications for years to come, that supports natural evolution by design. For simple frontend-2-backend systems it is for sure overkill. It starts to shine especially in cases where there are multiple peers not under your control you can interact with.