Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

7171 - response handling in API code #7172

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

poikilotherm
Copy link
Contributor

THIS IS A DRAFT AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE

What this PR does / why we need it:
A document-driven-design approach starting a discussion how to do responses in the JAX-RS API code.
There are many different approaches in use, adding technical debts. We should lint and refactor a bit.

Which issue(s) this PR closes:

Relates to #7171

Special notes for your reviewer:
None yet.

Suggestions on how to test this:
None yet (docs only for now)

Does this PR introduce a user interface change? If mockups are available, please link/include them here:
Not yet. I might change the API UX.

Is there a release notes update needed for this change?:
There will. But not now.

Additional documentation:
None yet.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 19.535% when pulling 609f45b on poikilotherm:7171-api-responses into c859b16 on IQSS:develop.

Copy link
Member

@michbarsinai michbarsinai left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Agreed that a more consistent approach might be useful. The correct way for handling a specific error also depends on the usage sites (e.g. general handler vs. an AbstractApiBean subclass) so we may end up with 2 approaches rather than one.

At any event, it's good to have a discussion about this, and to have some clear guidelines in place.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants