Api Design Error Handling
Contents |
Hub Database Hub Sage API Hubs Elements API Integration Toolkit API Integration Platform Element Mapper
Api Error Handling Best Practices
Element Builder Formula Builder Ticket Sync Formula Support Options Security Pricing web api error handling Pricing Startup Package Customers Customers Partners Sage API Documentation API Documentation API Resource Center Blog All Developer
Rest Api Error Handling
How-To Products Events Shenanigans Try it For Free! What We Do What We Do Services Products API Hubs Documents Hub CRM Hub Marketing Hub Messaging Hub Help Desk rails api error handling Hub Finance Hub Ecommerce Hub Human Capital Hub Social Hub ERP Hub VM & Infrastructure Hub Payments Hub Database Hub Sage API Hubs Elements API Integration Toolkit API Integration Platform Element Mapper Element Builder Formula Builder Ticket Sync Formula Support Options Security Pricing Pricing Startup Package Customers Customers Partners Sage API Documentation API Documentation API Resource Center error handling web api 2 Blog All Developer How-To Products Events Shenanigans CLOUD ELEMENTS BLOG STAY UP TO DATE WITH LATEST IDEAS COMING FROM CLOUD ELEMENTS Error Handling: RESTful API Design Part III By Travis McChesney in Developer Posted May 26, 2015 So far, in this series, we’ve covered the basics of RESTful URL design and crafting responses from your API endpoints. In Part II, we briefly mentioned what to do in case of errors that might arise from your APIs, but in this post we take a deeper dive into what to do when it all goes terribly wrong. If you want to brush up on the topics we covered in the previous posts, check them out here: RESTful API Design Part I: POST /EFF/YOU/THIS/IS/THE/RIGHT/URL RESTful API Design Part II: 418: I'm a Teapot, and Other Bad API Responses There are many ways to communicate the success or failure of an API call, but these are some of the techniques we have found to be the most intuitive here at Cl
one: Plan Your API. Provide Helpful Responses Building a solid foundation to ensure the scalability and longevity of your API is crucial, but just as crucial
Web Api Global Error Handling
is ensuring that developers can understand your API, and trust it to error handling design pattern respond with the appropriate header codes and error messages. In this week's API best practices, we're going to
Rest Error Handling Example
cover how to ensure that developers understand exactly what happened with their API call by using the appropriate HTTP Status Codes (something that is often times missed), as well as by http://blog.cloud-elements.com/error-handling-restful-api-design-part-iii returning descriptive error messages on failure. Use HTTP Status Codes One of the most commonly misused HTTP Status Codes is 200 - ok or the request was successful. Surprisingly, you'll find that a lot of APIs use 200 when creating an object (status code 201), or even when the response fails: In the above case, if the developer is solely relying http://blogs.mulesoft.com/dev/api-dev/api-best-practices-response-handling/ on the status code to see if the request was successful, the program will continue on not realizing that the request failed, and that it did something wrong. This is especially important if there are dependencies within the program on that record existing. Instead, the correct status code to use would have been 400 to indicate a "Bad Request." By using the correct status codes, developers can quickly see what is happening with the application and do a "quick check" for errors without having to rely on the body's response. You can find a full list of status codes in the HTTP/1.1 RFC, but just for a quick reference, here are some of the most commonly used Status Codes for RESTful APIs: 200 Ok 201 Created 304 Not Modified 400 Bad Request 401 Not Authorized 403 Forbidden 404 Page/ Resource Not Found 405 Method Not Allowed 415 Unsupported Media Type 500 Internal Server Error Of course, if you feel like being really creative, you can always take advantage of status code: 418 I'm a Teapot It's important to note that Twitter's famed 420 stat
here for a quick overview of the site Help Center Detailed answers to any questions you might have Meta Discuss the workings and policies of this site About Us Learn more http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/147059/the-modern-way-to-perform-error-handling about Stack Overflow the company Business Learn more about hiring developers or posting ads with us Programmers Questions Tags Users Badges Unanswered Ask Question _ Programmers Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional programmers interested in conceptual questions about software development. Join them; it only takes a minute: Sign up Here's how it works: Anybody can ask a question Anybody can answer The best answers error handling are voted up and rise to the top The modern way to perform error handling… up vote 103 down vote favorite 31 I've been pondering this problem for a while now and find myself continually finding caveats and contradictions, so I'm hoping someone can produce a conclusion to the following: Favour exceptions over error codes As far as I'm aware, from working in the industry for four years, reading api error handling books and blogs, etc. the current best practice for handling errors is to throw exceptions, rather than returning error codes (not necessarily an error code, but a type representing an error). But - to me this seems to contradict... Coding to interfaces, not implementations We code to interfaces or abstractions to reduce coupling. We don't know, or want to know, the specific type and implementation of an interface. So how can we possibly know what exceptions we should be looking to catch? The implementation could throw 10 different exceptions, or it could throw none. When we catch an exception surely we're making assumptions about the implementation? Unless - the interface has... Exception specifications Some languages allow developers to state that certain methods throw certain exceptions (Java for example, uses the throws keyword.) From the calling code's point of view this seems fine - we know explicitly which exceptions we might need to catch. But - this seems to suggest a... Leaky abstraction Why should an interface specify which exceptions can be thrown? What if the implementation doesn't need to throw an exception, or needs to throw other exceptions? There's no way, at an interface level, to know which exceptions an implementation may wa