devwrite

Towards a better web

[devwrite @devwrite_]

@code_bytein 200 with an application error payload

[devwrite @devwrite_]

@pilcrowonpaper Why wouldn't you need to hash email OTPs?

[devwrite @devwrite_]

@pilcrowonpaper @realaminevg What would cause the website to reject it?

[devwrite @devwrite_]

@llmDestructor @romxdev @tailwindcss Seemed like you were trying to refute that tailwind doesn't forces you to use components and then said to use shadcn? Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant?

[devwrite @devwrite_]

@llmDestructor @romxdev @tailwindcss Shadcn is components...

[devwrite @devwrite_]

@maxcallstack @SumitM_X Actually, I will refine my take on this. I can see the case for it being a 2xx. The server alone determines whether or not the resource exists as such it is completely free to treat it as an empty resource. Likewise it can also treat it as a nonexistent resource with a 404

[devwrite @devwrite_]

@maxcallstack @SumitM_X Well, it’s relevant because that’s what my argument for using a 404 hinges on

[devwrite @devwrite_]

@maxcallstack @SumitM_X Ask it about opacity of URIs, and ask it what it what it would return in the case of /widgets?userId=123 if there are no "widgets" in the application

[devwrite @devwrite_]

@maxcallstack @SumitM_X According to your application, yes, but not according to the HTTP spec. URIs are completely opaque identifiers and carry no meaning at the HTTP-level

[devwrite @devwrite_]

@maxcallstack @SumitM_X Yeah, so that standard fallback would be a 404 because that URL doesn't exist. It's the same case with /orders?userId=123.

URIs are opaque strings with no meaning according to the HTTP spec, so these two cases are the same.

[devwrite @devwrite_]

@getifyX Presumably someone would take out a collateralized loan if they intend to spend that money, why not just tax it via sales tax? Would it make sense to tax a collateralized loan if you don't actually use that loan money?

[devwrite @devwrite_]

@romxdev @tailwindcss Yeah, would just result in a lot of duplication of style info though

[devwrite @devwrite_]

@maxcallstack @SumitM_X Which status code would you return for /widgets?userId=123 if there's no concept of "widgets" in the application?

[devwrite @devwrite_]

@maxcallstack @SumitM_X Agreed, which is why a URL that doesn't exist should return a 404—consistent with all the other 404s we use 😁

[devwrite @devwrite_]

@maxcallstack @SumitM_X You could argue, as I am, that if a user has no orders, then that /orders?userId=123 resource does not exist yet and thus the URL is not legit, hence the 404.

A different philosophy from yours, but certainly a valid one

[devwrite @devwrite_]

@maxcallstack @SumitM_X 404 is useful here as it can be indicative of a misconfigured client. where did the client get the /orders?userId=123 URL from if there are no orders for that user?

[devwrite @devwrite_]

@RajuKundena @SumitM_X There's no such concept as an "endpoint" in the HTTP spec or URI spec. Similarly there's no such concept of "collection".

URIs are completely opaque strings with no semantic meaning given depending on their structure.

404 with an app-specific body is the correct response here

[devwrite @devwrite_]

@TheRealPomax @housecor If you can accomplish something without tooling, then that's how you should be doing it. Occam's Razor

[devwrite @devwrite_]

@nevgeniev @EOEboh You can, and you should