I'm building a REST API and have a dilemma around the returning response code to a GET operation.
I've found many examples and answers online but not for my particular scenario.
Here is what I have found and understand so far:
if returning an empty list (say /library/authors/{authorId}/books) an empty list with a response code 200 will suffice
if requesting a specific resource with an id ( say /library/authors/{authorId}/books/{bookId} ) the response will be empty with a 404
That summarizes most of my use cases and I am fine with it.
However, what happens if I access a sub-resource without an id?
For example, for arguments sake, let's say the author can have many books, but only one auto-biography. He either has one or he doesn't. I don't expect the user to pass in the auto-biography id because the system can figure out on its own if one exists, the endpoint is something like this:
GET /library/authors/{authorId}/auto-biography
If the author exists but he has no autobiography (it is NULL), would the http response code be:
204 (empty content)
404 (resource does not exist)
Thank you in advance!
Working through the semantics
GET /library/authors/1/auto-biography
/library/authors/1/auto-biography is an identifier. The resource itself is some concept like "the auto biography of author 1"; notice that we can talk about the resource even though it may not actually exist yet.
A resource can map to the empty set, which allows references to be made to a concept before any realization of that concept exists
The thing that appears in the body of the HTTP response isn't the resource, but a representation of the resource.
So now look at the status codes
404
The 404 (Not Found) status code indicates that the origin server did not find a current representation for the target resource or is not willing to disclose that one exists.
204
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.
A loose analogy: suppose you try to get the contents of a file. 404 is semantically aligned with FileNotFound; 204 indicates the file is zero bytes long.
404 would normally be accompanied by "a representation containing an explanation of the error situation, and whether it is a temporary or permanent condition." It indicates that the client tried to use a link that shouldn't have been available.
204, on the other hand, doesn't have anything -- the representation is zero bytes long, how could there be data. It's a special case of a 200 response, advising the client (and intermediary components) that the response body is intentionally left blank.
We have an endpoint which when you post create a new version of resource and returns a 201 and the location of the newly created resource. It determines the new version number based on a comparison of the current version and the version being posted (using a semver like ruleset).
If the version you post is identical to the existing version then no version number is updated. What should we return in this case?
We could just return a 201 even though we have not technically created anything.
I don't want to return a 409 as its not really a conflict, like when you post something with the same id. If you posted the same thing when the existing version was slightly different then you would happily get a 201.
We could just return a 200, but then that would seem weird, and increases the response codes that the users have to deal with
Does the idempotency of the 201 response matter?
Any better suggestions?
How about 303 - See Other? Seems to fit. I draw your attention to this sentence
from the spec at https://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html
This method exists primarily to allow the output of a POST-activated script to redirect the user agent to a selected resource.
That sounds like what you want to do to me. Here's the rest of it.
10.3.4 303 See Other
The response to the request can be found under a different URI and SHOULD be retrieved using a GET method on that resource. This method exists primarily to allow the output of a POST-activated script to redirect the user agent to a selected resource. The new URI is not a substitute reference for the originally requested resource. The 303 response MUST NOT be cached, but the response to the second (redirected) request might be cacheable.
The different URI SHOULD be given by the Location field in the response. Unless the request method was HEAD, the entity of the response SHOULD contain a short hypertext note with a hyperlink to the new URI(s).
Note: Many pre-HTTP/1.1 user agents do not understand the 303
status. When interoperability with such clients is a concern, the
302 status code may be used instead, since most user agents react
to a 302 response as described here for 303
I am a bit puzzled by the other answers as some get it almost right. So, let's clear up things a bit. If all requests are indeed performed with the POST method, in the context of ReSTfulness, they are supposed to modify state on the target server. Otherwise, the meaning of POST is a bit relaxed as you can see in RFC 7231, sec. 4.3.3.
Since the intent of the requests is to create a new version of a resource, they have failed if a version with the given presentation already exists. This would disqualify any 2xx-class response codes. From section 6.3:
The 2xx (Successful) class of status code indicates that the client's request was successfully received, understood, and accepted.
If you absolutely wanted to, you could go for 202/Accepted, which "is intentionally noncommittal." This is a bit of a stretch, though, as this status code is intended for queued processing. I would advise against it.
The 204/No Content code suggested by others is a bit of a poor choice. It were absolutely correct if you POSTed to the resource you were updating, though.
As the result is neither informational (1xx) nor a fault by the server (5xx). Let us have a look at the 3xx class first. From section 6.4:
The 3xx (Redirection) class of status code indicates that further action needs to be taken by the user agent in order to fulfill the request.
One of the most prominent one here would be 304/Not Modified. While sounding like a perfect fit, this code is unfortunately not applicable here. It can only be returned in response to conditional GET or HEAD requests.
302/Found may sound like the next best fit. However, this code is intended for temporary redirects, which is in all likelyhood not what you want.
As has been suggested here, 303/See Other is indeed a good choice:
The 303 (See Other) status code indicates that the server is redirecting the user agent to a different resource [...] which is intended to provide an indirect response to the original request.
[...]
This status code is applicable to any HTTP method. It is primarily used to allow the output of a POST action to redirect the user agent to a selected resource
All other 3xx codes are dealing with various forms of redirects that hardly relate to the situation here.
A final look, 4xx-class of status codes. From RFC 7231, sec. 6.5:
The 4xx (Client Error) class of status code indicates that the client seems to have erred. Except when responding to a HEAD request, the server SHOULD send a representation containing an explanation of the error situation, and whether it is a temporary or permanent condition. These status codes are applicable to any request method.
Very few of these are actually deeling with the request body. Two of those who do would stand out here: One is 400/Bad Request, which is by design overly broad. It is - if you will - a catch-all solution. However, this would imply that the request body is malformed (as in syntactically incorrect) in some way, which is probably not the case.
More interesting is 409/Conflict. From the RFC (emphasis mine):
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 wording of the definition places this code close to the PUT method, but is not exclusive. To reiterate the definition of the 4xx codes:
These status codes are applicable to any request method.
422/Unprocessable Entity is a contender, but it implies a semantic error, which really isn't the case here.
Ultimately (drumroll) the final piece of the puzzle could be found in section 4.3.3:
If the result of processing a POST would be equivalent to a representation of an existing resource, an origin server MAY redirect the user agent to that resource by sending a 303 (See Other) response with the existing resource's identifier in the Location field.
Note the "MAY." So you can really choose between 303 and 409. I feel 409 were the better fit, as clearly an earlier request introduced a state that is incompatible with the current one. OTOH, 303 may be the politer way to go and is closer to the standard. Either way, as a consumer of your API, I would really like to know if my requests failed. And be it by not having any effect whatsoever.
If nothing has been created by the operation, 201 is not suitable for that:
6.3.2. 201 Created
The 201 (Created) status code indicates that the request has been fulfilled and has resulted in one or more new resources being created. [...]
See below some options you could consider if the operation succeeds:
6.3.1. 200 OK
The 200 (OK) status code indicates that the request has succeeded. The payload sent in a 200 response depends on the request method. For the methods defined by this specification, the intended meaning of the payload can be summarized as:
[...]
POST: a representation of the status of, or results obtained from, the action;
[...]
Aside from responses to CONNECT, a 200 response always has a payload, though an origin server MAY generate a payload body of zero length. If no payload is desired, an origin server ought to send 204 (No Content) instead. [...]
6.3.5. 204 No Content
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. [...]
If the operation fails:
6.5.1. 400 Bad Request
The 400 (Bad Request) status code indicates that the server cannot 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).
11.2. 422 Unprocessable Entity
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. For example, this error condition may occur if an XML request body contains well-formed (i.e., syntactically correct), but semantically erroneous, XML instructions.
A 201 Created should be used whenever you creating a new resource without doubt.
As defined in HTTP Method Definitions RFC, either200 Ok or 204 No Contentis an appropriate response if the operation does not create a new resource depending on the response body content.
The action performed by the POST method might not result in a resource
that can be identified by a URI. In this case, either 200 (OK) or 204
(No Content) is the appropriate response status, depending on whether
or not the response includes an entity that describes the result.
If a resource has been created on the origin server, the response
SHOULD be 201 (Created) and contain an entity which describes the
status of the request and refers to the new resource, and a Location
header (see section 14.30).
Now, coming back to your original question about what to use when the operation is successful and there is nothing to return, you should use 204 No Content. This status code is specifically meant for scenarios where the requested operation is successfully completed but there is no additional relevant information that the server can provide.
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.
I don't think that for this case the idempotency is an issue, because the state of the system is not the same as it was in the inicial request, because the entity now exists, so you can respond with a different code.
200 should be fine, but it is a little weird as you said.
I have never use this, but I read that for some case you should redirect with a 302, to make a get for other resource, in this case I think this apply, return a 302 and make a get pointing for the old semver, assuming that you have a get endpoint for this entity.
If the POST'd resource has the same version number, but different data, then a 409 would be fitting. But if the data is the same as what's already stored, then a 409 might not be required. Through process of elimination I would say 200 OK would be fine.
We could just return a 200, but then that would seem weird, and increases the response codes that the users have to deal with
If this is a costly concern, consider eliminating the 201, not the 200. The fact of the matter is that for any decently complex service there may be at some point a situation where a 20X (where X is not 0) is applicable. So does that mean we code with each of the 20X responses in mind and spend time checking if our services has situations where 20X is preferred over 200? I suspect not. So unless there is a specific reason to respond with a 20X, for example to deal with a specific use case, then just use 200 and reduce the amount of coding and documenting required. I suspect for most scenarios, the calling client does not care.
Ultimately, the correct answer probably depends on whatever client is consuming your API. If you are building the client too, you could do whatever you prefer... (Just don't get too crazy.)
Assuming you are writing the API and client:
My opinion/suggestion is...
If there IS a new version number: The 201 HTTP status code would fit will.
If there is NOT a new version number: The 200 or 204 HTTP status code would fit well.
If there is no benefit to the client knowing the version number has changed or is the same: Send the 200 HTTP status code.
If you don't control the client consuming your API: Obviously defer to what they expect.
You may also wish review all of the HTTP Status Codes in the HTTP RFC spec. The above status codes also link directly to the relevant section.
201 : when new version is created
202 : when existing version is updated
204 : when request is accepted but no processing is done
by def, 204 = No Content
The server has fulfilled the request but does not need to return an
entity-body, and might want to return updated metainformation. The
response MAY include new or updated metainformation in the form of
entity-headers, which if present SHOULD be associated with the
requested variant.
If the client is a user agent, it SHOULD NOT change its document view
from that which caused the request to be sent. This response is
primarily intended to allow input for actions to take place without
causing a change to the user agent's active document view, although
any new or updated metainformation SHOULD be applied to the document
currently in the user agent's active view.
The 204 response MUST NOT include a message-body, and thus is always
terminated by the first empty line after the header fields.
So its slight tangential to your needs but I think its the best fit.
I have
/rest/drink/categories?alcohol=true
which is return 200 status code with list of drink categories that have alcohol in it, e.g.
200 ['wine','beer']
I wonder what status code should I use, if a user hit a none handled path like below
/rest/drink
or
/rest/drink?alcohol=true
404 - Not found if the URL does not exist,
400 - Bad request if the URL exists but the request parameter is invalid.
Http has status for such conditions.
4XX defines the error is from client side and needs a change.
Wiki says
The 4xx class of status code is intended for situations in which the client seems to have erred. Except when responding to a HEAD request, the server should include an entity containing an explanation of the error situation, and whether it is a temporary or permanent condition. These status codes are applicable to any request method. User agents should display any included entity to the user.[31]
For the condition where it is mentioned, its ideal to use 404 - Not Found or 400 - Bad Request
This gives list of all the status codes and appropriate explanation.
W3Org
defined the specifications for these.
I am wondering what status code would I response with in my else statement from the code below:
if (album) {
res.status(200).json({error: false, data: {channel_id: album.attributes.channel_id, id: album.id}});
} else {
res.status(200).json({error: false, data: {message: 'There is not album found with this name'}});
}
I don't want to leave both of them 200 as I want from front end to manage messaged thru status code, for ex if it returns 200 I would say "Created Successfully" while in else case I would display "No data found".
What is your suggestion?
"No data found" should be 404.
"Created Successfully" should be 201.
For the 201 you should also specify a Location header for where another request can access the new resource.
Refs:
201 http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html#sec10.2.2
404 http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html#sec10.4.5
UPDATE:
I thought I'd expand on this, because the comments below point to thought processes I've battled with myself.
GET /some/thing responding 404 Not Found may mean a database entity not found, but could also mean there is no such API end point. HTTP itself doesn't do much to help differentiate these cases. The URL represents a resource. It's not a thing in itself to be considered differently from the thing it represents.
Some APIs respond 400 when a request is made to a non-existant endpoint, but personally I don't like this as it seems to contradict the way web servers respond to normal resource requests. It could also confuse developers building client applications, as it suggests something is wrong in the HTTP transport rather than in their own code.
Suppose you decide to use 404 for missing database entities and 400 for what you consider bad requests. This may work for you, but as your application grows you'll uncover more and more scenarios that simple status codes just can't communicate on their own. And this is my point..
My suggestion is that all API responses carry meaningful data in the body. (JSON or XML, or whatever you're using). A request for an invalid url may look like:
HTTP/1.1 404 Not Found
{ "error": "no_endpoint", "errorText":"No such API end point" }
Although, I agree with above post, I would also consider HTTP status 200 for some cases.
For example, you have Post and Post_Comments entities. When you request comments for give Post Id, you can have either have 404 (an error which you then need to handle on your REST API consumer side) or 200 which means that everything is OK and an empty array is returned. In the HTTP status 200 case, you do not need to handle an error. As an example, see how FB treats HTTP codes https://apigee.com/about/blog/technology/restful-api-design-what-about-errors
We're authoring REST services, and there's a debate on what to do when someone requests a resource with a parent ID that does not exist.
Example: You are asking for a list of people associated with a company, so you GET with ID 1, but that company ID does not exist.
I would argue that the definition of REST says that we would simple return a empty list (resulting in a HTTP 204 (No Content)), since a HTTP Bad Request is for only malformed syntax, per the specification:
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html
The request could not be understood by the server due to malformed syntax. The client SHOULD NOT repeat the request without modifications.
I think it's also clearer that there was no error to be interpreted, the resource you are requesting does not exist.
Thoughts on best practice?
There is a SO discussion here: HTTP 400 (bad request) for logical error, not malformed request syntax although it's a bit more abstract, I'm torn if I should post this, or simply use that question.
If you do
GET /company/1
and there does not exist a company with id 1 then I think the appropriate HTTP status code is 404 - not found.
However, if you were to do,
GET /companies?id=1
Then I would return a 200 and an empty list of companies.
204 is not an error code, it is a success code, but that's a quibble. I don't often see it for empty lists, but rather success responses that simply have no meaningful content to respond with, such as a successful DELETE. For example, if you are returning JSON, a 200 with content of [] is what I would expect of an empty list of results. However, I don't think it is incorrect to use it in your case.
404 Not Found is a more common error for the case you describe. You are correct that it is not a syntax error, so 400 is not appropriate, but in fact, the resource is not there. 404 Not Found is an accurate response.
But in choosing between 200, 204 and 404, the correct answer is: it depends. The question is whether it is an error or not. 404 is more expressive (the client can tell that there is no such company) but you can trade expressiveness for security, meaning that it might be a good thing that a client can't tell whether the company with that id exists or not.
What about caching? only 200 will get cached, both 204 and 404 won't get cached. If this is important 200 with empty list seems ok. Not sure what about empty single elements?