Closed DavidBiesack closed 2 years ago
Thanks, David!
That's correct - 428 is currently not in the diagram. Did you give it any thought as to where to place the check(s)?
I can see another precondition mistake: the missing=true case where the client gives if-none-match:* i.e. "create only if it doesn't exist already". Currently that ends up in missing_has_precondition:true -> respond with 412.
One thing at a time though. First let's figure out 428.
RFC reference https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6585#section-3
The diagram is fantastic! Thanks. Will this issue be fixed? It is more than 4 years old?
@KillerBoogie fixed by who? 🤔 Send a PR or at least make a suggestion.
Having this issue opened for 4 years, and only 2 participants means that it's not a high prio.
Nice diagram. The flow does not specify checks for required preconditions (If-Match required) and the 428 response if omitted.