You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This code is documented at the API portal level, it should not be documented at the API level.
I consider that as correct, as if a method is documented at API level it is obviously allowed and the method shouldn't return 405 on the resource.
But 405 is included in chapter 6.1 and CAMARA_common.yaml.
Expected behavior
Chapter 6.1 repeats the statement that this code should not be documented at the API level
405 will not be listed within CAMARA_common.yaml (as the resource server has no influence on the details of the API GW response) to avoid that it is documented on API level.
Alternative solution
If there are valid use cases for a 405 reponse on a method which is defined in the API spec, they should be mentioned within the API Guidelines in chapter 6.1. The current response message is from my perspective not correct or can't be influenced by CAMARA.
The 405 (Method Not Allowed) status code indicates that the method received in the request-line is known by the origin server but not supported by the target resource. The origin server MUST generate an Allow header field in a 405 response containing a list of the target resource's currently supported methods.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Think we can formally take actions in the next MetaRelease and for the current one MetaRelease just to ensure no one API has defined this error within the yaml
Think we can formally take actions in the next MetaRelease and for the current one MetaRelease just to ensure no one API has defined this error within the yaml
There currently four APIs within the repositories which have defined the error response 405 within their YAML:
Problem description
405 error response is defined in CAMARA_common.yaml, but the API Design Guideline says in chapter 3.2. HTTP response codes:
I consider that as correct, as if a method is documented at API level it is obviously allowed and the method shouldn't return 405 on the resource.
But 405 is included in chapter 6.1 and CAMARA_common.yaml.
Expected behavior
Alternative solution
If there are valid use cases for a 405 reponse on a method which is defined in the API spec, they should be mentioned within the API Guidelines in chapter 6.1. The current response message is from my perspective not correct or can't be influenced by CAMARA.
Additional context
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html#name-status-codes:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: