Ah, yes, I mean, agree that would have been technically correct, but like I said, its just not how a lot of the web works. auth0-nextjs seems to react to `GET` by default (though it might also work with `POST` and you certainly can override things)
So OP was correct that a proper use of the foundational layer of HTTP would have saved time, yours in particular, right?
Also, I didn’t get your ”Claude predicted your tone smiley” thing. OP tone seemed polite and clear. Your tone, on the other hand, seemed defensive and dismissive. Even after you realizing that you initially misunderstood what OP said, adding a “I mean” and a “but I like I said” to reinforce you were right even while misreading what OP said (rather than just acknowledging you got it wrong in the first reading).
I would go even further and speculate that you were predisposed to get a dismissive tone from a web forum (your previous Claude test suggests that) so much that you got a perfectly fine comment and misread in a way that it felt in the “wrong tone” to you. Even misunderstanding what the post said. All of that to confirm your predisposition.
I think I left my context collapse a little here. The article had gotten really good feedback when I passed it around in the various communities I'm in, but I hadn't written it with the idea of the broader hackersphere in mind. I did post the story to here, but I didn't really think it would get traction. I should have done some double-checking and added caveats and context beforehand.
My comment about Claude was simply intended to giggle at how much it has us pegged, not to call out the op directly.
By electing to actionably mutate state on GET, one subscribes themselves to a world of hurt.
It is totally how the web works, both as defined by HTTP and in practice. Surely one can pile a dozen workarounds to circumvent the GET safety definition, but then it's just flat out simpler to have it be a POST or DELETE and work as intended.
That a lot of people are doing it a certain - broken - way certainly does not mean they are right.
That would also have been practically correct, avoiding you this bug and the many hours of debugging, being resilient to byzantine/adversarial technologies (NextJS reimplementing prefetching itself and making debugging very difficult)
soneca|1 year ago
Also, I didn’t get your ”Claude predicted your tone smiley” thing. OP tone seemed polite and clear. Your tone, on the other hand, seemed defensive and dismissive. Even after you realizing that you initially misunderstood what OP said, adding a “I mean” and a “but I like I said” to reinforce you were right even while misreading what OP said (rather than just acknowledging you got it wrong in the first reading).
I would go even further and speculate that you were predisposed to get a dismissive tone from a web forum (your previous Claude test suggests that) so much that you got a perfectly fine comment and misread in a way that it felt in the “wrong tone” to you. Even misunderstanding what the post said. All of that to confirm your predisposition.
togakangaroo|1 year ago
My comment about Claude was simply intended to giggle at how much it has us pegged, not to call out the op directly.
lloeki|1 year ago
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7231#section-4.2.1
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110#name-safe-methods
By electing to actionably mutate state on GET, one subscribes themselves to a world of hurt.
It is totally how the web works, both as defined by HTTP and in practice. Surely one can pile a dozen workarounds to circumvent the GET safety definition, but then it's just flat out simpler to have it be a POST or DELETE and work as intended.
That a lot of people are doing it a certain - broken - way certainly does not mean they are right.
williamdclt|1 year ago