(no title)
akurtzhs | 6 years ago
To be honest, that's what I'd expect. What do you dislike about that result, and what would you prefer to see returned? Jump straight to 404?
returning a single object without an array to represent one item.
So an array if there's multiple results, and a bare object for a single result? That's unpleasant.
ergothus|6 years ago
That's my pet peeve. I completely understand the logic - using the HTTP status code to show the result of interaction with the resource is very RESTful - but my complaint is that unless you provide more context, a 404 doesn't tell me if I'm getting a response of "that resource doesn't exist" vs "you're accessing a url pattern that will never work".
So if you want this random internet user to be pleased, never return a 404 response unless the caller is able to see this difference. (Usually having SOME form of body unique to the API is sufficient to prove the 404 is not because of a bad API call).
Giving me the HTML to your site 404 page when I called a non-HTML API is likewise sad-inducing.
WrtCdEvrydy|6 years ago
Sohcahtoa82|6 years ago
saagarjha|6 years ago
It’s inconsistent and means I need to write special case code to check for it, when before I could choose to. It should return an empty array.
irishsultan|6 years ago
bobbylarrybobby|6 years ago
thaumasiotes|6 years ago
> To be honest, that's what I'd expect. What do you dislike about that result, and what would you prefer to see returned? Jump straight to 404?
I'd expect an empty array to represent no items. It's the difference between "" and "[]".
ako|6 years ago
wwweston|6 years ago
unknown|6 years ago
[deleted]