current HttpApiProblem::TYPE_HTTP_RFC is not realy RFC compliant
Open
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- PHP
- Stars
- 67
- Forks
- 8
- Avg merge
- 26m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 1
Description
Bug Report
| Q | A |
|---|---|
| BC Break | no |
| Version | 1.8.0 |
Summary
Sending "type": "http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html" is not realy RFC compliant.
It does not identify the actual problem, has no documentation about it.
Even not sending it at all, is more compliant than sending an irrelevant URL.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7807#section-3.1
"type" (string) - A URI reference [RFC3986] that identifies the
problem type. This specification encourages that, when
dereferenced, it provide human-readable documentation for the
problem type (e.g., using HTML [W3C.REC-html5-20141028]). When
this member is not present, its value is assumed to be
"about:blank".
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by locating HttpApiProblem::TYPE_HTTP_RFC and its usages, then compare the current type value with RFC 7807 section 3.1. Determine the intended handling for this irrelevant URI and verify the resulting behavior against the issue's requirement that the type identify the actual problem or be omitted.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- php
- Domain
- api
- Issue type
- Bug
- Difficulty
- 2/5
- Estimated time
- 1-3 hours
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100