im currently working on a website which has Spring at backend and Angularjs at front side and we had discussed about back end responses to handle frontend's message dialogs and i have a question to ask:
Lets say i have an API :
GET : /getstatistics
Request params : fromTime,toTime ( in timestamp format)
And if client make a request with invalid params like a string, which response code should be returned from server ? HTTP 400 bad request and response body with a message " fromTime and toTime should be in timestamp format" or HTTP 200 with same message?
I saw some Google's APIs for example Oauth, they're returning code 200 for a request with invalid access_token but ,in our project my opinion it should be HTTP 400 because Javascript has success and error callbacks, is it better for it just pop a red color dialog with message inside rather than a HTTP 200 code then still need to check the content of the message?
Any advides and opinions are appreciated.
Thanks!
You should be returning a 400 error for bad request. Check out this reference.
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).
Please have a look at RFC7231#section-6
A client MUST understand the class of any status code, as indicated by
the first digit
and,
4xx (Client Error): The request contains bad syntax or cannot be
fulfilled
Bad syntax can be something like you've mentioned in your question (making a request with invalid parameters, like a string).
I keep these two references handy whenever I'm designing RESTful APIs, might be helpful for you too:
https://httpstatuses.com/
http://www.restapitutorial.com/httpstatuscodes.html
Yes you are right, the http code should be 400 in your case. Your discussion here normally should be whether you need to return 400 or 422. For this you can check the accepted response for this SO question 400 vs 422 response to POST of data
I think it has something to do with how the parameters are used. If you use the resource, then a 404 should return. If the data is simply not valid then we decide to set a 409 Status to the request. It can't full fill it at 100% because of missing/invalid parameter.
HTTP Status Code "409 Conflict" was for us a good try because it's
definition require to include enough information for the user to
recognize the source of the conflict.
Reference: w3.org/Protocols/
Edit:
In any case, the status code 200 is incorrect here because there is an error. In response, you can then return specific information like this:
{
"errors": [
{
"userMessage": "Sorry, the parameter xxx is not valid",
"internalMessage": "Invalid Time",
"code": 34,
"more info": "http://localhost/"
}
]
}
For example i have an api method /api/orders.getOrders which actually always exists.
If this method returns no data in following format, should i send 404 or 200 http response code?
{ "orders":[]
}
200 is correct.
From RFC 7231
The 4xx (Client Error) class of status code indicates that the client seems to have erred.
The 404 (Not Found) status code indicates that the origin server did not find a current representation for the target resource
In your case, the client did not make a mistake in asking for the resource; the origin server did find a current representation of the resource, so 404 (indeed, the entire 4xx class of responses) is not appropriate.
204 is also wrong.
The 204 (No Content) status code indicates that the server has successfully fulfilled the request and that there is no additional content to send in the response payload body.
"No content" means that the HTTP response message body is empty, which is to say the representation being returned is 0 bytes long. It's not appropriate when returning a non empty representation of an empty resource.
I have a bunch of PUT operations which execute actions on the input resource.
Let's make an example: I have a payment operation in my API which state that a credit card must be charged by a specific Amount.
In my code I first verify if there is sufficient credit on the card and then execute the operation. If there is'nt sufficient amount I simply return 400 but I am not sure it is correct.
Which is the correct HTTP Status Code in cases like this?
I can, of course send a response with HTTP 200 and attach a payload with further details explaining the error. I can also send back an HTTP 400 Bad Request or even better an HTTP 412 Precondition Failed.
Which is the correct code to send in the response in scenario like this where the validation failed? Is there any resource that I can read to understand the rationale behind HTTP Status Codes and HTTP Verbs?
Use 422 Unprocessable Entity.
The 422 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.
Failing that, simply use 400 for any error having to do with your business domain. As of June 2004, the description for error 400 was amended to read:
The server cannot or will not process the request due to something that is perceived to be a client error
If the operation failed because of data sent by the user (it seems to be the case), you should use status codes 400 (general) or 422 (more precise but coming from the WebDAV spec). You can return back additional hints about the error within the payload (the structure is up to you) like:
{
error: {
"field": "amount",
"message": "The amount isn't correct - Sufficient credit."
}
}
I think that code 412 doesn't apply here since it must be returned when your server doesn't meet a condition specified by the client (see headers If-* like If-Match, If-Modified-Since, ...).
Hope it helps you,
Thierry
IMO: I would stick with 200 and then parse out the response and deal with that. HTTP status codes are protocol status code, not something that you should use for dealing with application logic.
{
"error": {
"field": "amount",
"message": "The amount isn't correct - Sufficient credit."
}
}
In case of the above code, the service call worked fine warranting a return code 200. However, you application logic now needs to deal with the error reported.
If we are using a HTTP status code to indicate error, we will start to get flagged in our logs etc. even though there was no technical error.
I'm trying to figure out what the correct status code to return on different scenarios with a "REST-like" API that I'm working on. Let's say I have an end point that allows POST'ing purchases in JSON format. It looks like this:
{
"account_number": 45645511,
"upc": "00490000486",
"price": 1.00,
"tax": 0.08
}
What should I return if the client sends me "sales_tax" (instead of the expected "tax"). Currently, I'm returning a 400. But, I've started questioning myself on this. Should I really be returning a 422? I mean, it's JSON (which is supported) and it's valid JSON, it's just doesn't contain all of the required fields.
400 Bad Request would now seem to be the best HTTP/1.1 status code for your use case.
At the time of your question (and my original answer), RFC 7231 was not a thing; at which point I objected to 400 Bad Request because RFC 2616 said (with emphasis mine):
The request could not be understood by the server due to malformed syntax.
and the request you describe is syntactically valid JSON encased in syntactically valid HTTP, and thus the server has no issues with the syntax of the request.
However as pointed out by Lee Saferite in the comments, RFC 7231, which obsoletes RFC 2616, does not include that restriction:
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).
However, prior to that re-wording (or if you want to quibble about RFC 7231 only being a proposed standard right now), 422 Unprocessable Entity does not seem an incorrect HTTP status code for your use case, because as the introduction to RFC 4918 says:
While the status codes provided by HTTP/1.1 are sufficient to
describe most error conditions encountered by WebDAV methods, there
are some errors that do not fall neatly into the existing categories.
This specification defines extra status codes developed for WebDAV
methods (Section 11)
And the description of 422 says:
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.
(Note the reference to syntax; I suspect 7231 partly obsoletes 4918 too)
This sounds exactly like your situation, but just in case there was any doubt, it goes on to say:
For example, this error condition may occur if an XML
request body contains well-formed (i.e., syntactically correct), but
semantically erroneous, XML instructions.
(Replace "XML" with "JSON" and I think we can agree that's your situation)
Now, some will object that RFC 4918 is about "HTTP Extensions for Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV)" and that you (presumably) are doing nothing involving WebDAV so shouldn't use things from it.
Given the choice between using an error code in the original standard that explicitly doesn't cover the situation, and one from an extension that describes the situation exactly, I would choose the latter.
Furthermore, RFC 4918 Section 21.4 refers to the IANA Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Status Code Registry, where 422 can be found.
I propose that it is totally reasonable for an HTTP client or server to use any status code from that registry, so long as they do so correctly.
But as of HTTP/1.1, RFC 7231 has traction, so just use 400 Bad Request!
Case study: GitHub API
https://docs.github.com/en/rest/overview/resources-in-the-rest-api#client-errors
Maybe copying from well known APIs is a wise idea:
There are three possible types of client errors on API calls that receive request bodies:
Sending invalid JSON will result in a 400 Bad Request response:
HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request
Content-Length: 35
{"message":"Problems parsing JSON"}
Sending the wrong type of JSON values will result in a 400 Bad Request response:
HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request
Content-Length: 40
{"message":"Body should be a JSON object"}
Sending invalid fields will result in a 422 Unprocessable Entity response:
HTTP/1.1 422 Unprocessable Entity
Content-Length: 149
{
"message": "Validation Failed",
"errors": [
{
"resource": "Issue",
"field": "title",
"code": "missing_field"
}
]
}
400 Bad Request is proper HTTP status code for your use case. The code is defined by HTTP/0.9-1.1 RFC.
The request could not be understood by the server due to malformed
syntax. The client SHOULD NOT repeat the request without
modifications.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2616#section-10.4.1
422 Unprocessable Entity is defined by RFC 4918 - WebDav. Note that there is slight difference in comparison to 400, see quoted text below.
This error condition may occur if an XML
request body contains well-formed (i.e., syntactically correct), but
semantically erroneous, XML instructions.
To keep uniform interface you should use 422 only in a case of XML responses and you should also support all status codes defined by Webdav extension, not just 422.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4918#page-78
See also Mark Nottingham's post on status codes:
it’s a mistake to try to map each part of your application “deeply”
into HTTP status codes; in most cases the level of granularity you
want to be aiming for is much coarser. When in doubt, it’s OK to use
the generic status codes 200 OK, 400 Bad Request and 500 Internal
Service Error when there isn’t a better fit.
How to Think About HTTP Status Codes
To reflect the status as of 2015:
Behaviorally both 400 and 422 response codes will be treated the same by clients and intermediaries, so it actually doesn't make a concrete difference which you use.
However I would expect to see 400 currently used more widely, and furthermore the clarifications that the HTTPbis spec provides make it the more appropriate of the two status codes:
The HTTPbis spec clarifies the intent of 400 to not be solely for syntax errors. The broader phrase "indicates that the server cannot or will not process the request due to something which is perceived to be a client error" is now used.
422 is specifically a WebDAV extension, and is not referenced in RFC 2616 or in the newer HTTPbis specification.
For context, HTTPbis is a revision of the HTTP/1.1 spec that attempts to clarify areas that were unclear or inconsistent. Once it has reached approved status it will supersede RFC2616.
There is no correct answer, since it depends on what the definition of "syntax" is for your request. The most important thing is that you:
Use the response code(s) consistently
Include as much additional information in the response body as you can to help the developer(s) using your API figure out what's going on.=
Before everyone jumps all over me for saying that there is no right or wrong answer here, let me explain a bit about how I came to the conclusion.
In this specific example, the OP's question is about a JSON request that contains a different key than expected. Now, the key name received is very similar, from a natural language standpoint, to the expected key, but it is, strictly, different, and hence not (usually) recognized by a machine as being equivalent.
As I said above, the deciding factor is what is meant by syntax. If the request was sent with a Content Type of application/json, then yes, the request is syntactically valid because it's valid JSON syntax, but not semantically valid, since it doesn't match what's expected. (assuming a strict definition of what makes the request in question semantically valid or not).
If, on the other hand, the request was sent with a more specific custom Content Type like application/vnd.mycorp.mydatatype+json that, perhaps, specifies exactly what fields are expected, then I would say that the request could easily be syntactically invalid, hence the 400 response.
In the case in question, since the key was wrong, not the value, there was a syntax error if there was a specification for what valid keys are. If there was no specification for valid keys, or the error was with a value, then it would be a semantic error.
422 Unprocessable Entity Explained Updated: March 6, 2017
What Is 422 Unprocessable Entity?
A 422 status code occurs when a request is well-formed, however, due
to semantic errors it is unable to be processed. This HTTP status was
introduced in RFC 4918 and is more specifically geared toward HTTP
extensions for Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV).
There is some controversy out there on whether or not developers
should return a 400 vs 422 error to clients (more on the differences
between both statuses below). However, in most cases, it is agreed
upon that the 422 status should only be returned if you support WebDAV
capabilities.
A word-for-word definition of the 422 status code taken from section
11.2 in RFC 4918 can be read below.
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.
The definition goes on to say:
For example, this error condition may occur if an XML request body
contains well-formed (i.e., syntactically correct), but semantically
erroneous, XML instructions.
400 vs 422 Status Codes
Bad request errors make use of the 400 status code and should be
returned to the client if the request syntax is malformed, contains
invalid request message framing, or has deceptive request routing.
This status code may seem pretty similar to the 422 unprocessable
entity status, however, one small piece of information that
distinguishes them is the fact that the syntax of a request entity for
a 422 error is correct whereas the syntax of a request that generates
a 400 error is incorrect.
The use of the 422 status should be reserved only for very particular
use-cases. In most other cases where a client error has occurred due
to malformed syntax, the 400 Bad Request status should be used.
https://www.keycdn.com/support/422-unprocessable-entity/
Your case: HTTP 400 is the right status code for your case from REST perspective as its syntactically incorrect to send sales_tax instead of tax, though its a valid JSON. This is normally enforced by most of the server side frameworks when mapping the JSON to objects. However, there are some REST implementations that ignore new key in JSON object. In that case, a custom content-type specification to accept only valid fields can be enforced by server-side.
Ideal Scenario for 422:
In an ideal world, 422 is preferred and generally acceptable to send as response if the server understands the content type of the request entity and the syntax of the request entity is correct but was unable to process the data because its semantically erroneous.
Situations of 400 over 422:
Remember, the response code 422 is an extended HTTP (WebDAV) status code. There are still some HTTP clients / front-end libraries that aren't prepared to handle 422. For them, its as simple as "HTTP 422 is wrong, because it's not HTTP". From the service perspective, 400 isn't quite specific.
In enterprise architecture, the services are deployed mostly on service layers like SOA, IDM, etc. They typically serve multiple clients ranging from a very old native client to a latest HTTP clients. If one of the clients doesn't handle HTTP 422, the options are that asking the client to upgrade or change your response code to HTTP 400 for everyone. In my experience, this is very rare these days but still a possibility. So, a careful study of your architecture is always required before deciding on the HTTP response codes.
To handle situation like these, the service layers normally use versioning or setup configuration flag for strict HTTP conformance clients to send 400, and send 422 for the rest of them. That way they provide backwards compatibility support for existing consumers but at the same time provide the ability for the new clients to consume HTTP 422.
The latest update to RFC7321 says:
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).
This confirms that servers can send HTTP 400 for invalid request. 400 doesn't refer only to syntax error anymore, however, 422 is still a genuine response provided the clients can handle it.
400 - Failed the request validation like if the data is missing, if it has a wrong type, etc. so it is given a status of 400.
422 - Passes the request validation, but failed the operation process, because the the request data, or part of it is giving an error to the to the operation, but is handled, and given a status of 422.
Firstly this is a very good question.
400 Bad Request - When a critical piece of information is missing from the request
e.g. The authorization header or content type header. Which is absolutely required by the server to understand the request. This can differ from server to server.
422 Unprocessable Entity - When the request body can't be parsed.
This is less severe than 400. The request has reached the server. The server has acknowledged the request has got the basic structure right. But the information in the request body can't be parsed or understood.
e.g. Content-Type: application/xml when request body is JSON.
Here's an article listing status codes and its use in REST APIs.
https://metamug.com/article/status-codes-for-rest-api.php
It is unclear to me when you should and should not return a HTTP 412: Precondition Failed, error for a web service? I am thinking of using it when validating data. For example, if a client POST's XML data and that data is missing a required data element, then responding with a 412 and a description of the error.
Does that align with the spirit of responding with an HTTP 412, or should something else be used (e.g. another http error code or web application exception)?
If you look at RFC 2616 you'll see a number of request headers that can be used to apply conditions to a request:
If-Match
If-Modified-Since
If-None-Match
If-Range
If-Unmodified-Since
These headers contain 'preconditions', allowing the client to tell the server to only complete the request if certain conditions are met. For example, you use a PUT request to update the state of a resource, but you only want the PUT to be actioned if the resource has not been modified by someone else since your most recent GET.
The response status code 412 (Precondition Failed) is typically used when these preconditions fail.
Your example sounds like an invalid request (i.e. the client has submitted data that is invalid because of missing values). A status code of 400 (Bad Request) is more appropriate here IMO.
412 is reserved for cases where the request is conditional, and the condition isn't met.
For your use case, 422 Unprocessable Entity is a good match.
Your best bet would be to avoid 412. In practice most web services that I've used send a 400 code (Bad Request). A lot of frameworks have built-in support for 400 too and your clients will appreciate a more common error code. Often times, especially with REST interfaces, a simple "message" or "error" element is returned with a description.