[RFC] errdefs: remove "ErrAlreadyExists" because it's not an error#38462
Merged
tiborvass merged 1 commit intomoby:masterfrom Mar 22, 2019
Merged
[RFC] errdefs: remove "ErrAlreadyExists" because it's not an error#38462tiborvass merged 1 commit intomoby:masterfrom
tiborvass merged 1 commit intomoby:masterfrom
Conversation
Member
Author
|
@cpuguy83 mainly opening this for discussion, as we're not using this one currently, so perhaps we should remove, and re-implement if we need this? IIUC, a 304 should generally be returned for a |
thaJeztah
commented
Dec 31, 2018
api/server/httputils/errors.go
Outdated
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This seemed incorrect at least
Member
|
Since it is not currently being used I guess it's ok to remove... Note that errdefs is not about 1-1 mapping to HTTP status codes, but rather to help calling code to understand the error that was returned. |
thaJeztah
force-pushed
the
remove_non_error_from_errdefs
branch
from
b9f6869 to
99c49a8
Compare
tiborvass
approved these changes
Mar 15, 2019
tiborvass
added
status/2-code-review
rebuild/janky
and removed
status/1-design-review
labels
Contributor
|
TestSwarmClusterRotateUnlockKey is flakey |
Member
Author
|
Yup; #33041 |
The `ErrAlreadyExists` error is used for 304 statuses, which is not an error-condition, so should probably not be defined as part of the errdefs package. This patch removes the `ErrAlreadyExists` interface, and related helpers, as it was currently not used. Note that a 304 status can fulfil certain use-cases, but (refering to https://www.codetinkerer.com/2015/12/04/choosing-an-http-status-code.html) could probably be handled by a 200 OK, unless we want to perform caching in the client. If we do want to use 304 statuses, perhaps we need a separate class of "errors" for this (?). Signed-off-by: Sebastiaan van Stijn <[email protected]>
tiborvass
force-pushed
the
remove_non_error_from_errdefs
branch
from
99c49a8 to
7d4b788
Compare
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #38462 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage ? 36.89%
=========================================
Files ? 614
Lines ? 45383
Branches ? 0
=========================================
Hits ? 16743
Misses ? 26348
Partials ? 2292 |
tonistiigi
approved these changes
Mar 21, 2019
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
6 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The
ErrAlreadyExistserror is used for 304 statuses, which is not an error-condition, so should probably not be defined as part of the errdefs package.This patch removes the
ErrAlreadyExistsinterface, and related helpers, as it was currently not used.Note that a 304 status can fulfil certain use-cases, but (refering to https://www.codetinkerer.com/2015/12/04/choosing-an-http-status-code.html) could probably be handled by a 200 OK, unless we want to perform caching in the client.
If we do want to use 304 statuses, perhaps we need a separate class of "errors" for this (?).