Open max-pfeiffer opened 2 years ago
@max-pfeiffer I am not the author, but I am currently looking at this library and the spec. According to the spec it is allowed to extend the problem details object with additional fields, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7807#section-3.2
@arbakker Thanks for pointing that out.
Hi @edaniszewski , first of all thanks for providing that package to the community. I just reviewed your package because we think about using it in our software development operation: this is very well made.
But with looking into RFC 7807 and checking on the problem details object members at some points your implementation does not seem to be compliant:
exc_type
to the problem object. This member type is not present in the RFC documentation. So I would consider this beeing out of specs. Also I am asking myself why a additional object property is needed here. When I read the specs I think that exception name could be just added to thetitle
property of the problem object:Maybe you can let me know your thinking behind these implementations. Especially not so sure what your thinking was with regard to that specific parts of the RFC 7807 I quoted above. There might have been good reasons to do it like this, but I don't know.
Regards, Max