A microservice I develop exposes a single endpoint, PUT /deployments/{uuid} . The endpoint is used to initiate a potentially expensive deployment operation, so we only ever want it to happen once, which is why we chose PUT + UUID over POST (for uniqueness). The deployment is immutable, so it can never be updated, so we currently raise an exception if the PUT is called more than once with the same uuid.
As a person who loves bikeshedding and therefore cares deeply about restfulness, this grinds my gears. PUT is supposed to be idempotent, so raising an exception after making the same request multiple times is an antipattern. However, we have a requirement to not allow sequential identical requests to generate new deployments, so the usual POST is out.
While the best solution is one that works, I'd like ours to be a little more elegant, if possible. I've posited a POST with the UUID in the payload, but my team seems to think that's worse than the current solution. I'm considering just returning a 200 OK from a PUT to the same UUID rather than a 201 CREATED, but I'm not sure if that has the same problem as non-idempotent-put in not semantically conveying the information I want.
Is there a "best solution" here? Or am I doomed to be "that guy" on my team if I pursue this further (joke's on you i'm already that guy).
tl;dr What is the correct RESTful API signature for a /deployments endpoint that is immutable, and required to not allow the same request to be processed twice?
Idempotent does not mean "2 identical requests should yield the same response". It means: "The server state after 2 identical requests should be the same as when only 1 is made".
A similar example, if you call DELETE on a resource and get a 204 No Content back, and call DELETE again and get a 404, this doesn't violate the idempotency requirement. After the second delete the resource is still removed, just like it was after the first.
So multiple identical idempotent requests are allowed to give different responses.
That said though, I think it might be nicer to the second identical request to also get a 2xx status back. It doesn't have to be the same as the first.
The use-case is if a client sent a HTTP request but got disconnected before it got a response. The client should retry and if the server detects the request is the same as the first, the server can just give the client a success response (but don't do anything).
This is generally a good idea, because if the client got an error back for the second request, it might be harder to know if the request failed because it succeeded earlier, or for other reasons.
That all being said though, there is also a way here to have your cake and eat it too.
A client could send the following header along with the PUT request:
If-None-Match: *
If the client omits the header, you can always return 424 Precondition Required.
If the resource does not yet exist, it's a success response. If the resource was created earlier, you can return 412 Precondition Failed.
Using this mechanism a client has a standard way to figure out that the request failed because a successful one was made earlier.
Based on the docs here, PUT is the best method to use. The response should be 201 when it triggers the deployment, and either 200 or 204 when nothing is changed. It shouldn't be POST because calling a POST endpoint twice should trigger the effect both times.
I am designing a RESTful API that is managing favorites. Each favorite resource can contain details of two items that are considered as part of the favorite.
HTTP POST /favorites
{ "item1" : "ball",
"item1-ID" : "1",
"item2" : "bat",
"item2-ID" : "2"
}
Please excuse the rudimentary JSON payload. The focus is however on the semantics of the POST
The above POST method creates a new favorite resource (that contains a ball (ID 1) and a bat (ID 2))
My question is with regard to the expected behavior when the same POST request is sent twice. The first request will create a favorite (as expected). What should happen when the second request is sent?
1) Signal an error with 409
2) Signal a success with 201
1) is not idempotent (as POST is), while 2) makes POST idempotent.
Which is the correct approach?
You are thinking about this in the wrong way. If a POST creates a new resource then the resource should have a URL that identifies it (e.g., http://.../favorite/1). When the second POST with the same payload happens, is a new resource created? If so, then you have two separate resources with unique URLs. If you application does not create a new resource, then the second POST would return the same URL as the first one.
Edit
The POST section of RFC7231 does not prohibit it from being implemented in an idempotent manner. It does provide some guidance though:
If a POST creates a new resource, then it SHOULD send a 201 (Created) response containing a Location header identifying the created resource
If the result of a POST is equivalent to an existing resource, then the server MAY redirect the UA to the existing resource by returning a 303 (See Other) with the appropriate Location header
POST is not required to change the state of a resource. However, GET and HEAD are required to be idempotent. I'm not aware of any method that is required to change state on the server.
Personally, I implement resource creating POST methods as returning a 303 redirect to the canonical URL for the resource as a matter of practice. I wasn't aware of the RFC distinguishing status codes for resource creation and re-use responses. The benefit of this approach is that it removes the need to include the created resource in the POST response and the GET to the canonical URL will cache the response in any intermediate caches that may be present. It also allows for the implementation of intelligent clients that do not retrieve the response and use the canonical URL (from the Location header) instead.
In your case, I think that I would adopt the 303 approach provided that a favorite has a URL of it's own; 201 would be strange if it did not. If there is very good reason for distinguishing the creation and re-use cases in the response, then a 201 when the new resource is created and a 303 when it is reused is appropriate. What I would not do is to return a 409 unless your application requires you to deny the creation of a resource that already exists.
To me, as you pictured it, it should create a new favorite. But this feels strange for almost any application. What if:
your favorites could be defined as non-repeatable if they are exact copies
you could send an ID with the favorite (not a good idea, as it'd be client-based), and insert or update based on that
you could send some other unique field and use that to define whether it is a "create" or an "update" (ie. "favorite name" or "position in menu")
As you see, it all depends on your application.
Maybe you can get some ideas from this article I happened to write some time ago: A look into various REST APIs . Don't miss the summary at the bottom.
What should happen when the second request is sent?
It all depends on your implementation . Say if you have some logic in your controller that checks if ID 1 and ID 2 exist in the data base then update the value else create the new record.
The whole thing is not depended on POST request.
AND FYI HTTP response code for success is 200 and not 201.
Your current approach is not correct and the question is not a JAVA question
In general, it depends on you, how you want to design the underlying system. In most cases, POST creates a new resource (Yes, there are instances when you use POST and not create anything new. For example, you have a use-case where in you want to search on a very long list of the parameters and GET might not be the way!. This is completely acceptable and not a violation of REST principles.)
Commenting on your specific case,
What should happen when the second request is sent?
You should ask the following questions to yourself.
Is having a duplicate request (a request with the same payload/headers/time-stamp etc.) a "different" request for your system ? If YES - treat it normally as if it's not duplicate. I assume that the next systems to which the request is going are also understanding this as a new request, otherwise they could fail and flag error. For example, MySQL could throw Duplicate Primary Key error (Refer: Error Code: 1062. Duplicate entry 'PRIMARY')
If the answer to (1) is NO - Is the duplicate occurrence of this request an expected behaviour of the clients ? (For example, you tend to get duplicate requests from mobile if it's intermittently getting the network.) If YES - return 200 OK. Note the idempotency here.
If the answer to (2) is NO - throw 409 conflict with a custom error-code which client can handle and react accordingly. I would also investigate the unwanted behaviour of client on throwing the duplicate requests and fix it if that's doable.
Duplicate idempotent POST requests should return the previously created resource in response if the status code of the response was 200. Idempotency Enforcement Scenarios
I'm currently building a Web API and have a specific scenario that I cannot determine which HTTP Status Code would be most appropriate to return.
The Scenario
I have a "client" resource which owns a collection of contact resources.
The invariant is that a client must always have at least one contact. Therefore, if a request is made to delete a contact and this contact is the last remaining contact for the given client, I need to return an appropriate HTTP response indicating that the request cannot be fulfilled as you "Cannot Delete the last contact".
My feeling is this should fall under the category of "4xx Client Error's"
I've considered the following Status Codes:
400 Bad Request - I've ruled this out as it's specifically regarding malformed request's in which the server is unable to understand.
405 Method Not Allowed - at first this seems suitable, but I think 405 indicates that this method should never be allowed, however the above scenario is only transient. Thoughts?
409 Conflict - I've been leaning towards this, however the common example given for this code is generally a concurrency exception/edit conflict.
Does anyone have any guidance as to how I should respond in this scenario?
The key is to look at the expectations on the client and caches when a particular status code is used.
Here's some chunks of RFC2616 that are useful to look at:
10.4.1. 400 Bad Request
The request could not be understood by the server due to malformed syntax. The client SHOULD NOT repeat the request without modifications.
This indicates that the request itself is completely wrong - either syntactically or by the protocol. Your specific case is really an application protocol error so this may indeed be appropriate.
10.4.6. 405 Method Not Allowed
The method specified in the Request-Line is not allowed for the resource identified by the Request-URI. The response MUST include an Allow header containing a list of valid methods for the requested resource.
This is a transient status code. If the DELETE refers specifically to the contact resources itself (e.g., DELETE /contacts/D9DF5176-EEE4-4C70-8DA7-BA57B82027A8) then this is probably the most appropriate status code. However, if the DELETE is on a different resource or a resource with a query (e.g., DELETE /contacts?index=12), then I would not return a 405. Then again, I usually steer clear of using DELETE with anything resembling a query.
10.4.10. 409 Conflict
The request could not be completed due to a conflict with the current state of the resource. This code is only allowed in situations where it is expected that the user might be able to resolve the conflict and resubmit the request. The response body SHOULD include enough information for the user to recognize the source of the conflict. Ideally, the response entity would include enough information for the user or user agent to fix the problem; however, that might not be possible and is not required.
This seems like the most appropriate status at first look. I would probably prefer a 400 in your case. A 409 would clearly indicate that there is a conflict with the resource but there really isn't anything that the requestor can do that could change the outcome short of completely altering the resource (i.e., add a contact first). Most of the 409 responses were optimistic concurrency failures such as trying to modify a resource that was modified since it was retrieved. For example, look at the concurrency failures returned by AtomServer built over Apache Adbera.
So with all of that. I would probably use something like 400 Cannot Delete Last Contact as the response line. Remember that you are allowed to change the phrase associated with the status code. This is a really good time to do such a thing.
I'm building a server that allows clients to store objects. Those objects are fully constructed at client side, complete with object IDs that are permanent for the whole lifetime of the object.
I have defined the API so that clients can create or modify objects using PUT:
PUT /objects/{id} HTTP/1.1
...
{json representation of the object}
The {id} is the object ID, so it is part of the Request-URI.
Now, I'm also considering allowing clients to create the object using POST:
POST /objects/ HTTP/1.1
...
{json representation of the object, including ID}
Since POST is meant as "append" operation, I'm not sure what to do in case the object is already there. Should I treat the request as modification request or should I return some error code (which)?
My feeling is 409 Conflict is the most appropriate, however, seldom seen in the wild of course:
The request could not be completed due to a conflict with the current state of the resource. This code is only allowed in situations where it is expected that the user might be able to resolve the conflict and resubmit the request. The response body SHOULD include enough information for the user to recognize the source of the conflict. Ideally, the response entity would include enough information for the user or user agent to fix the problem; however, that might not be possible and is not required.
Conflicts are most likely to occur in response to a PUT request. For example, if versioning were being used and the entity being PUT included changes to a resource which conflict with those made by an earlier (third-party) request, the server might use the 409 response to indicate that it can't complete the request. In this case, the response entity would likely contain a list of the differences between the two versions in a format defined by the response Content-Type.
According to RFC 7231, a 303 See Other MAY be used If the result of processing a POST would be equivalent to a
representation of an existing resource.
It's all about context, and also who is responsible for handling duplicates of requests (server or client or both)
If server just point the duplicate, look at 4xx:
400 Bad Request - when the server will not process a request because it's obvious client fault
409 Conflict - if the server will not process a request, but the reason for that is not the client's fault
...
For implicit handling of duplicates, look at 2XX:
200 OK
201 Created
...
if the server is expected to return something, look at 3XX:
302 Found
303 See Other
...
when the server is able to point the existing resource, it implies a redirection.
If the above is not enough, it's always a good practice to prepare some error message in the body of the response.
Personally I go with the WebDAV extension 422 Unprocessable Entity.
According to RFC 4918
The 422 Unprocessable Entity status code means the server understands the content type of the request entity (hence a 415 Unsupported Media Type status code is inappropriate), and the syntax of the request entity is correct (thus a 400 Bad Request status code is inappropriate) but was unable to process the contained instructions.
Late to the game maybe but I stumbled upon this semantics issue while trying to make a REST API.
To expand a little on Wrikken's answer, I think you could use either 409 Conflict or 403 Forbidden depending on the situation - in short, use a 403 error when the user can do absolutely nothing to resolve the conflict and complete the request (e.g. they can't send a DELETE request to explicitly remove the resource), or use 409 if something could possibly be done.
10.4.4 403 Forbidden
The server understood the request, but is refusing to fulfill it.
Authorization will not help and the request SHOULD NOT be repeated. If
the request method was not HEAD and the server wishes to make public
why the request has not been fulfilled, it SHOULD describe the reason
for the refusal in the entity. If the server does not wish to make
this information available to the client, the status code 404 (Not
Found) can be used instead.
Nowadays, someone says "403" and a permissions or authentication issue comes to mind, but the spec says that it's basically the server telling the client that it's not going to do it, don't ask it again, and here's why the client shouldn't.
As for PUT vs. POST... POST should be used to create a new instance of a resource when the user has no means to or shouldn't create an identifier for the resource. PUT is used when the resource's identity is known.
9.6 PUT
...
The fundamental difference between the POST and PUT requests is
reflected in the different meaning of the Request-URI. The URI in a
POST request identifies the resource that will handle the enclosed
entity. That resource might be a data-accepting process, a gateway to
some other protocol, or a separate entity that accepts annotations. In
contrast, the URI in a PUT request identifies the entity enclosed with
the request -- the user agent knows what URI is intended and the
server MUST NOT attempt to apply the request to some other resource.
If the server desires that the request be applied to a different URI,
it MUST send a 301 (Moved Permanently) response; the user agent MAY
then make its own decision regarding whether or not to redirect the
request.
I would go with 422 Unprocessable Entity, which is used when a request is invalid but the issue is not in syntax or authentication.
As an argument against other answers, to use any non-4xx error code would imply it's not a client error, and it obviously is. To use a non-4xx error code to represent a client error just makes no sense at all.
It seems that 409 Conflict is the most common answer here, but, according to the spec, that implies that the resource already exists and the new data you are applying to it is incompatible with its current state. If you are sending a POST request, with, for example, a username that is already taken, it's not actually conflicting with the target resource, as the target resource (the resource you're trying to create) has not yet been posted. It's an error specifically for version control, when there is a conflict between the version of the resource stored and the version of the resource requested. It's very useful for that purpose, for example when the client has cached an old version of the resource and sends a request based on that incorrect version which would no longer be conditionally valid. "In this case, the response representation would likely contain information useful for merging the differences based on the revision history." The request to create another user with that username is just unprocessable, having nothing to do with any version conflict.
For the record, 422 is also the status code GitHub uses when you try to create a repository by a name already in use.
After having read this and several other, years-long, discussions on status code usage, the main conclusion I came to is that the specifications have to be read carefully, focusing on the terms being used, their definition, relationship, and the surrounding context.
What often happens instead, as can be seen from different answers, is that parts of the specifications are ripped of their context and interpreted in isolation, based on feelings and assumptions.
This is going to be a pretty long answer, the short summary of which is that HTTP 409 is the most appropriate status code to report the failure of an "add new resource" operation, in case a resource with the same identifier already exists. What follows is the explanation why, based solely on what's stated in the authoritative source - RFC 7231.
So why is 409 Conflict the most appropriate status code in a situation described in the OP's question?
RFC 7231 describes 409 Conflict status code as follows:
The 409 (Conflict) status code indicates that the request could not be completed due to a conflict with the current state of the target resource.
The key components here are the target resource and its state.
Target resource
The resource is defined by the RFC 7231 as follows:
The target of an HTTP request is called a "resource". HTTP does not limit the nature of a resource; it merely defines an interface that might be used to interact with resources. Each resource is identified by a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI), as described in Section 2.7 of [RFC7230].
So, when using a HTTP interface, we always operate on the resources identified by URIs, by applying HTTP methods to them.
When our intention is to add a new resource, based on the OP's examples, we can:
use PUT with the resource /objects/{id};
use POST with the resource /objects.
/objects/{id} is out of interest, because there can be no conflict when using a PUT method:
The PUT method requests that the state of the target resource be created or replaced with the state defined by the representation enclosed in the request message payload.
If the resource with the same identifier already exists, it will be replaced by PUT.
So we'll focus on the /objects resource and POST.
RFC 7231 says about the POST:
The POST method requests that the target resource process the representation enclosed in the request according to the resource's own specific semantics. For example, POST is used for the following functions (among others): ... 3) Creating a new resource that has yet to be identified by the origin server; and 4) Appending data to a resource's existing representation(s).
Contrary to how the OP understands POST method:
Since POST is meant as "append" operation...
Appending data to a resource's existing representation is just one of the possible POST "functions". Moreover, what the OP actually does in the provided examples, is not directly appending data to the /objects representation, but creating a new independent resource /objects/{id}, which then becomes part of the /objects representation. But that's not important.
What's important is the notion of the resource representation, and it brings us to...
Resource state
RFC 7231 explains:
Considering that a resource could be anything, and that the uniform interface provided by HTTP is similar to a window through which one can observe and act upon such a thing only through the communication of messages to some independent actor on the other side, an abstraction is needed to represent ("take the place of") the current or desired state of that thing in our communications. That abstraction is called a representation [REST].
For the purposes of HTTP, a "representation" is information that is intended to reflect a past, current, or desired state of a given resource, in a format that can be readily communicated via the protocol, and that consists of a set of representation metadata and a potentially unbounded stream of representation data.
That's not all, the specification continues to describe representation parts - metadata and data, but we can summarize that a resource representation, that consists of metadata (headers) and data (payload), reflects the state of the resource.
Now we have both parts needed to understand the usage of the 409 Conflict status code.
409 Conflict
Let's reiterate:
The 409 (Conflict) status code indicates that the request could not be completed due to a conflict with the current state of the target resource.
So how does it fit?
We POST to /objects => our target resource is /objects.
OP does not describe the /objects resource, but the example looks like a common scenario where /objects is a resource collection, containing all individual "object" resources. That is, the state of the /objects resource includes the knowledge about all existing /object/{id} resources.
When the /objects resource processes a POST request it has to a) create a new /object/{id} resource from the data passed in the request payload; b) modify its own state by adding the data about the newly created resource.
When a resource to be created has a duplicate identifier, that is a resource with the same /object/{id} URI already exists, the /objects resource will fail to process the POST request, because its state already includes the duplicate /object/{id} URI in it.
This is exactly the conflict with the current state of the target resource, mentioned in the 409 Conflict status code description.
In your case you can use 409 Conflict
And if you want to check another HTTPs status codes from below list
1×× Informational
100 Continue
101 Switching Protocols
102 Processing
2×× Success
200 OK
201 Created
202 Accepted
203 Non-authoritative Information
204 No Content
205 Reset Content
206 Partial Content
207 Multi-Status
208 Already Reported
226 IM Used
3×× Redirection
300 Multiple Choices
301 Moved Permanently
302 Found
303 See Other
304 Not Modified
305 Use Proxy
307 Temporary Redirect
308 Permanent Redirect
4×× Client Error
400 Bad Request
401 Unauthorized
402 Payment Required
403 Forbidden
404 Not Found
405 Method Not Allowed
406 Not Acceptable
407 Proxy Authentication Required
408 Request Timeout
409 Conflict
410 Gone
411 Length Required
412 Precondition Failed
413 Payload Too Large
414 Request-URI Too Long
415 Unsupported Media Type
416 Requested Range Not Satisfiable
417 Expectation Failed
418 I’m a teapot
421 Misdirected Request
422 Unprocessable Entity
423 Locked
424 Failed Dependency
426 Upgrade Required
428 Precondition Required
429 Too Many Requests
431 Request Header Fields Too Large
444 Connection Closed Without Response
451 Unavailable For Legal Reasons
499 Client Closed Request
5×× Server Error
500 Internal Server Error
501 Not Implemented
502 Bad Gateway
503 Service Unavailable
504 Gateway Timeout
505 HTTP Version Not Supported
506 Variant Also Negotiates
507 Insufficient Storage
508 Loop Detected
510 Not Extended
511 Network Authentication Required
599 Network Connect Timeout Error
I don't think you should do this.
The POST is, as you know, to modify the collection and it's used to CREATE a new item. So, if you send the id (I think it's not a good idea), you should modify the collection, i.e., modify the item, but it's confusing.
Use it to add an item, without id. It's the best practice.
If you want to capture an UNIQUE constraint (not the id) you can response 409, as you can do in PUT requests. But not the ID.
"302 Found" sounds logical for me. And the RFC 2616 says that it CAN be answered for other requests than GET and HEAD (and this surely includes POST)
But it still keeps the visitor going to this URL to get this "Found" resource, by the RFC. To make it to go directly to the real "Found" URL one should be using "303 See Other", which makes sense, but forces another call to GET its following URL. On the good side, this GET is cacheable.
I think that I would use "303 See Other". I dont know if I can respond with the "thing" found in the body, but I would like to do so to save one roundtrip to the server.
UPDATE: After re-reading the RFC, I still think that an inexistent "4XX+303 Found" code should be the correct. However, the "409 Conflict" is the best existing answer code (as pointed by #Wrikken), maybe including a Location header pointing to the existing resource.
I think for REST, you just have to make a decision on the behavior for that particular system in which case, I think the "right" answer would be one of a couple answers given here. If you want the request to stop and behave as if the client made a mistake that it needs to fix before continuing, then use 409. If the conflict really isn't that important and want to keep the request going, then respond by redirecting the client to the entity that was found. I think proper REST APIs should be redirecting (or at least providing the location header) to the GET endpoint for that resource following a POST anyway, so this behavior would give a consistent experience.
EDIT:
It's also worth noting that you should consider a PUT since you're providing the ID. Then the behavior is simple: "I don't care what's there right now, put this thing there." Meaning, if nothing is there, it'll be created; if something is there it'll be replaced. I think a POST is more appropriate when the server manages that ID. Separating the two concepts basically tells you how to deal with it (i.e. PUT is idempotent so it should always work so long as the payload validates, POST always creates, so if there is a collision of IDs, then a 409 would describe that conflict).
Another potential treatment is using PATCH after all. A PATCH is defined as something that changes the internal state and is not restricted to appending.
PATCH would solve the problem by allowing you to update already existing items. See: RFC 5789: PATCH
What about 208 - http://httpstatusdogs.com/208-already-reported ? Is that a option?
In my opinion, if the only thing is a repeat resource no error should be raised. After all, there is no error neither on the client or server sides.
Stumbled upon this question while checking for correct code for duplicate record.
Pardon my ignorance but I don't understand why everyone is ignoring the code "300" which clearly says "multiple choice" or "Ambiguous"
In my opinion this would be the perfect code for building a non standard or a particular system for your own use. I could be wrong as well!
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7231#section-6.4.1
More likely it is 400 Bad Request
[**6.5.1. 400 Bad Request**][1]
The 400 (Bad Request) status code indicates that the server cannot or
will not process the request due to something that is perceived to be
a client error (e.g., malformed request syntax, invalid request
message framing, or deceptive request routing).
As the request contains duplicate value(value that already exists), it can be perceived as a client error. Need to change the request before the next try.
By considering these facts we can conclude as HTTP STATUS 400 Bad Request.
Since you mentioned that the object create request using post contains the ID of the object, you should make it an idempotent request. Just return the exact same response as a successful create request. Idempotent request makes APIs simpler, eg. now client doesn't have to worry about 2 different cases (success, failure). or client can safely retry the request, in case something goes wrong in connectivity/ server temporarily down.
Error 402, payment required
I.E. this resource already exists but if you give me enough money I'll delete the current one and give it to you :D
...but looking at mozilla's definition of status codes at https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Status#client_error_responses
as a more serious answer that no one has provided here, what about 451: unavailable for legal reasons. You cannot "legally(by terms and conditions put in place by yourself)" give multiple people access to the same account information
422 is also a good option which is Unprocessable Entity
The request was well-formed but was unable to be followed due to semantic errors. since it is a perfectly valid request but due to it being semantically equal to another entry, it cannot be followed.
This is a user side fault and belongs to 4xx group. This is the right answer https://developers.rebrandly.com/docs/403-already-exists-errors