The spec mandating its as a single string isn’t that crazy. It’s good to have a consistent response format so a basic deserializer can deserialize any error response object and get something out.
If you have different providers. One that returns error: { code: string } and another does something else, you end up with the same problem this post talks about-- Inconsistency.
As far as I can tell, the spec doesn’t limit you to just the one field and you can add other optional fields to the top level to the response that the caller can optionally decide to handle. But if you know there’s going to be a field called error that is a string. You always get at least something out of that to present.
Yeah, consistency is good, which is why it’s good to follow the spec. I’m saying that the decision to make errors be flat strings in the spec was a bad one. A better design would be what you have, where code is nested one level below error, plus permitting extra implementation-defined fields in that object.
The spec mandating its as a single string isn’t that crazy. It’s good to have a consistent response format so a basic deserializer can deserialize any error response object and get something out.
If you have different providers. One that returns
error: { code: string }and another does something else, you end up with the same problem this post talks about-- Inconsistency.As far as I can tell, the spec doesn’t limit you to just the one field and you can add other optional fields to the top level to the response that the caller can optionally decide to handle. But if you know there’s going to be a field called error that is a string. You always get at least something out of that to present.
Yeah, consistency is good, which is why it’s good to follow the spec. I’m saying that the decision to make errors be flat strings in the spec was a bad one. A better design would be what you have, where
codeis nested one level belowerror, plus permitting extra implementation-defined fields in that object.