If the user sends request to the server and the link requires specific custom headers to be set in order to work. In this case the error code should be 400, 403 or 422 ?
The HTTP specification requires any client to treat the response as 400 by default if it does not understand the specific meaning of the final two digits. So you must always design with the assumption that some clients will treat the response as 400.
If you can find a 4xx status code whose special extra handling works better for your application, then use it. When the client understands enough to do that extra handling you are slightly better off than if you had sent the default status.
The currently registered status codes which seem to match your servers meaning are:
403 Forbidden - this is about server refusing the request until it is somehow changed. Preferrably with the reason stated in the response body.
406 Not Acceptible - this is more specifically about values in the request headers not being right. Most commonly used for the Accept: header values.
412 Precondition Failed - this is about the problems with headers involved with negotiating which response body would be sent. Most commonly used for the If-* header values.
The 403 seems to be most accurate for when a server refused to deliver anything unless the custom headers is sent.
Related
I have a web app which sends HTTP status codes. In some instances, a 404 code is sent as a header, but then a 200 error is sent as well, in the same response.
HTTP/1.0 404 Not Found
HTTP/1.0 200 Ok
I can't change the execution order to prevent the first status code from being sent, so the second code is attempting to override it.
Chrome ignores the first code and assumes the status to be Ok. Does this conform to the HTTP standard, and should I rely on it?
No, it does not conform to the standard, and you should not rely on it. See https://www.greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc7230.html#rfc.section.5.6:
More than one response message per request only occurs when one or more informational responses (1xx, see Section 6.2 of [RFC7231]) precede a final answer to the same request.
The rfc for http 1.1 is given here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7230
Section 2.1 states:
A server responds to a client's request by sending one or more HTTP
response messages, each beginning with a status line ...
The standard states that you can send more than one response, if you wish, but that each response must have it's own status line. Further, the first line of the header must contain the status-line/code.
So, according to the standard interpreted literally, in theory you can send more than one response, but I've no idea what browsers would do with that, and definitely wouldn't rely on it.
What you've got at the moment is conforming to the rfc; the rfc doesn't say you can't have more than status line, only that the status line on the first line of each response is the one that matters - which chrome doesn't interpret correctly according to the rfc.
It might work, but I wouldn't rely on it.
What status code should a well-written HTTP server return when it gets a CORS preflight (OPTIONS) request?
200, 204 or something else?
Should the status code be different in case origin is allowed (and corresponding headers will be set) or not allowed (and CORS headers will not be set or will not match the origin)?
The gist of it is, just use 200.
A little more generally: You should just send back the same status code for the CORS preflight OPTIONS request that you’d send back for any other OPTIONS request. The relevant specs don’t require or recommend anything more than that.
What the specs say: The Fetch spec at https://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/ is where requirements for the CORS protocol are defined, and it says the status can be anything in the range 200-299.
That’s from the CORS-preflight fetch algorithm, in a step saying it can be any “ok status":
If a CORS check for request and response returns success and response’s status is an ok status, run these substeps: …
And as far as what an “ok status” is, the spec says this:
An ok status is any status in the range 200 to 299, inclusive.
Beyond that though, the Fetch spec doesn’t recommend any particular status within 200-299.
The other relevant spec here is the HTTP 1.1 spec, which has a section defining semantics of all HTTP response status codes, and within that, a section that defines Successful 2xx codes.
And within that section there’s a specific section for 200 OK, which says this:
The 200 (OK) status code indicates that the request has succeeded.
The payload sent in a 200 response depends on the request method.
For the methods defined by this specification, the intended meaning
of the payload can be summarized as:
…
OPTIONS a representation of the communications options;
So a response to a CORS preflight OPTIONS just needs to be:
an indication that the request has succeeded
a representation of the communication options (which in this case includes the Access-Control-Allow-Methods and Access-Control-Allow-Headers response headers)
That’s what 200 OK is defined by the HTTP spec to be, so you can stop right there.
But if you read through the rest of the 2xx codes in that section, you can confirm the semantics of none of them make sense for an OPTIONS response—except for 204 No Content.
Now as far as 204 No Content goes, there’s nothing wrong with using it for OPTIONS responses—but there’s also not really any point. That’s because:
unlike for some other methods, the HTTP spec defines no use for an OPTIONS payload
therefore in practice, clients don’t expect any payload (content) to come back for an OPTIONS (and wouldn’t do anything with any payload that did come back)
…so there’s no practical purpose in using a specific 204 status code in an OPTIONS response to explicitly tell clients there’s no payload.
Should the status code be different in case origin is allowed (and corresponding headers will be set) or not allowed (and CORS headers will not be set or will not match the origin)?
No. There’s no standard-defined code other than 200 or 204 you could use anyway—but regardless of that, the specs don’t require it to be any different and don’t define any different use if it is. And think about it: What is any existing client code going to do any differently due to any difference in the status codes for those two cases?
If the answer to that is, “Nothing”, then there’s no point in making it different.
Given all the above, the bottom line is: just send 200 OK for CORS preflight OPTIONS responses. Sending any code other than just 200 OK isn’t necessary or useful.
I used 204. Now it's not working cross-browser anymore. Use 200. Firefox started rejecting CORS requests if 204 is received in the preflight. It wasted me almost 2 hours debugging it.
Lesson to learn: When in doubt about web standards don't choose what makes sense spec wise(i.e. 204 for no content)...choose what most people do(the easy/stupid choice)
I am using basic auth passed through headers from an AJAX call and both Firefox and Chrome are using 204 for (preflight/options).
I cannot find any RFC or Standard of HTTP client behavior in case it gets HTTP response with an error 4xx. I know the 401, 407 are the examples when the HTTP headers are parsed, but...
I have the concrete problem for OPTIONS method (HTTP1.1). The server responses 401 Unauthorized, so client tries to authenticate and re-sends the request with an authentication. After that the response has the error 404 Not Found and HTTP header is filled with Set-Cookie HTTP Header. The client use Apache Java HTTPClient/HTTPComponents, which ignores HTTP headers in case of an error in the response.
Should this HTTP Header be accepted by the client? I believe it should not be, but I cannot find the supportive quotation in the RFC.
RFC 2616 does not specify that any headers should be ignored, not for 404 responses and not for 4xx responses in general either.
RFC 6265 allows clients to ignore Set-Cookie headers, but does not specify situations where that might happen; a single example is given, that does not cover your case:
the user agent might wish to block responses to "third-party" requests
from setting cookies
In your case, since your server seems to use HTTP basic access authentication, it does not seem to concern the Set-Cookie header. In HTTP basic authentication, the Authorization header is sent by the client with every request, so there should be no need to keep state in a cookie.
It is not clear from your question if you have a very specific HTTP server that you're talking to, or if you are implementing a general HTTP client that is supposed to work with whatever server you throw it at. If you have such a specific case that the HTTP server you work with sends state with 404 responses, and you're required to honor that state in order to communicate with the server, and you have no control over the server, then it does not matter what the standard says; you will honor the state sent, or you will not be able to talk to the server.
If, on the other hand, you're implementing a general client and need it to work regardless of the remote server, then your best bet is to stick to RFC 1958:
Be strict when sending and tolerant when receiving.
Implementations must follow specifications precisely when sending to
the network, and tolerate faulty input from the network. When in
doubt, discard faulty input silently, without returning an error
message unless this is required by the specification.
Which, to me, would mean that you should honor the full response received, regardless of the status code, unless you have an objective reason making it impossible for you to do so. I don't see a reason to ignore the state, even if it violates the standard (or in this case, your personal perception of the standard, since it does not say anything about accepting or ignoring the state).
Update: RFC 2617 (HTTP Authentication) states:
A client SHOULD assume that all paths at or deeper than the depth of
the last symbolic element in the path field of the Request-URI also
are within the protection space specified by the Basic realm value of
the current challenge. A client MAY preemptively send the
corresponding Authorization header with requests for resources in
that space without receipt of another challenge from the server.
It is highly inconsistent if the server expects HTTP authentication for one URL, but does not honor it for URLs beneath it, requiring a separate cookie-based authentication for them. If anything should be changed in your server implementation, it should be to harmonize the authentication scheme for all resources.
What status code should be returned if a client sends an HTTP request and specifies a Content-Encoding header which cannot be decoded by the server?
Example
A client POSTs JSON data to a REST resource and encodes the entity body using the gzip coding. However, the server can only decode DEFLATE codings because it failed the gzip class in server school.
What HTTP response code should be returned? I would say 415 Unsupported Media Type but it's not the entity's Content-Type that is the problem -- it's the encoding of the otherwise supported entity body.
Which is more appropriate: 415? 400? Perhaps a custom response code?
Addendum: I have, of course, thoroughly checked rfc2616. If the answer is there I may need some new corrective eyewear, but I don't believe that it is.
Update:
This has nothing to do with sending a response that might be unacceptable to a client. The problem is that the client is sending the server what may or may not be a valid media type in an encoding the server cannot understand (as per the Content-Encoding header the client packaged with the request message).
It's an edge-case and wouldn't be encountered when dealing with browser user-agents, but it could crop up in REST APIs accepting entity bodies to create/modify resources.
As i'm reading it, 415 Unsupported Media Type sounds like the most appropriate.
From RFC 2616:
10.4.16 415 Unsupported Media Type
The server is refusing to service the request because the entity of the request is in a format not supported by the requested resource for the requested method.
Yeah, the text part says "media type" rather than "encoding", but the actual description doesn't include any mention of that distinction.
The new hotness, RFC 7231, is even explicit about it:
6.5.13. 415 Unsupported Media Type
The 415 (Unsupported Media Type) status code indicates that the
origin server is refusing to service the request because the payload
is in a format not supported by this method on the target resource.
The format problem might be due to the request's indicated
Content-Type or Content-Encoding, or as a result of inspecting the
data directly.
They should make that the final question on Who Wants To Be a Millionaire!
Well the browser made a request that the server cannot service because the information the client provided is in a format that cannot be handled by the server. However, this isn't the server's fault for not supporting the data the client provided, it's the client's fault for not listening to the server's Acccept-* headers and providing data in an inappropriate encoding. That would make it a Client Error (400 series error code).
My first instinct is 400 Bad Request is the appropriate response in this case.
405 Method Not Allowed isn't right because it refers to the HTTP verb being one that isn't allowed.
406 Not Acceptable looks like it might have promise, but it refers to the server being unable to provide data to the client that satisfies the Accept-* request headers that it sent. This doesn't seem like it would fit your case.
412 Precondition Failed is rather vaguely defined. It might be appropriate, but I wouldn't bet on it.
415 Unsupported Media Type isn't right because it's not the data type that's being rejected, it's the encoding format.
After that we get into the realm of non-standard response codes.
422 Unprocessable Entity describes a response that should be returned if the request was well-formed but if it was semantically incorrect in some way. This seems like a good fit, but it's a WebDAV extension to HTTP and not standard.
Given the above, I'd personally opt for 400 Bad Request. If any other HTTP experts have a better candidate though, I'd listen to them instead. ;)
UPDATE: I'd previously been referencing the HTTP statuses from their page on Wikipedia. Whilst the information there seems to be accurate, it's also less than thorough. Looking at the specs from W3C gives a lot more information on HTTP 406, and it's leading me to think that 406 might be the right code after all.
10.4.7 406 Not Acceptable
The resource identified by the request is only capable of generating
response entities which have content characteristics not acceptable
according to the accept headers sent in the request.
Unless it was a HEAD request, the response SHOULD include an entity
containing a list of available entity characteristics and location(s)
from which the user or user agent can choose the one most appropriate.
The entity format is specified by the media type given in the
Content-Type header field. Depending upon the format and the
capabilities of the user agent, selection of the most appropriate
choice MAY be performed automatically. However, this specification
does not define any standard for such automatic selection.
Note: HTTP/1.1 servers are allowed to return responses which are
not acceptable according to the accept headers sent in the
request. In some cases, this may even be preferable to sending a
406 response. User agents are encouraged to inspect the headers of
an incoming response to determine if it is acceptable.
If the response could be unacceptable, a user agent SHOULD temporarily
stop receipt of more data and query the user for a decision on further
actions.
While it does mention the Content-Type header explicitly, the wording mentions "entity characteristics", which you could read as covering stuff like GZIP versus DEFLATE compression.
One thing worth noting is that the spec says that it may be appropriate to just send the data as is, along with the headers to tell the client what format it's in and what encoding it uses, and just leave it for the client to sort out. So if the client sends a header indicating it accepts GZIP compression, but the server can only generate a response with DEFLATE, then sending that along with headers saying it's DEFLATE should be okay (depending on the context).
Client: Give me a GZIPPED page.
Server: Sorry, no can do. I can DEFLATE pack it for you. Here's the DEFLATE packed page. Is that okay for you?
Client: Welllll... I didn't really want DEFLATE, but I can decode it okay so I'll take it.
(or)
Client: I think I'll have to clear that with my user. Hold on.
I have several pages designed to be called with AJAX - I have them return an abnormal status code if they can't be displayed, and my javascript will show an error box accordingly.
For example, if the user is not authenticated or their session has timed out and they try to call one of the AJAX pages, it will return 401 Unathorized.
I also have some return 500 Internal Server Error if something really odd happens server-side.
What status code should I return if one of these pages was called without required parameters? (and therefore can't return any content).
I had a look at the wikipedia article on HTTP status codes, but the closest one I could find to the code I'm looking for was this:
422 Unprocessable Entity
The request was well-formed but was unable to be followed due to semantic errors.
Edit: The above code is WebDAV specific and therefore unlikely to be appropriate in this case
Can anyone think of an appropriate code to return?
What status code should I return if one of these pages was called without required parameters? (and therefore can't return any content).
You could pick 404 Not Found:
The server has not found anything matching the Request-URI [assuming your required parameters are part of the URI, i.e. $_GET]. No indication is given of whether the condition is temporary or permanent. The 410 (Gone) status code SHOULD be used if the server knows, through some internally configurable mechanism, that an old resource is permanently unavailable and has no forwarding address. This status code is commonly used when the server does not wish to reveal exactly why the request has been refused, or when no other response is applicable.
(highlight by me)
404 Not Found is a subset of 400 Bad Request which could be taken as well because it's very clear about what this is:
The request could not be understood by the server due to malformed syntax. The client SHOULD NOT repeat the request without modifications.
This is normally more common with missing/wrong-named post fields, less with get requests.
As Luca Fagioli comments, strictly speaking 404, etc. are not a subset of the 400 code, and correctly speaking is that they fall into the 4xx class that denotes the server things this is a client error.
In that 4xx class, a server should signal whether the error situation is permanent or temporary, which includes to not signal any of it when this makes sense, e.g. it can't be said or would not be of benefit to share. 404 is useful in that case, 400 is useful to signal the client to not repeat the request unchanged. In the 400 case, it is important then for any request method but a HEAD request, to communicate back all the information so that a consumer can verify the request message was received complete by the server and the specifics of "bad" in the request are visible from the response message body (to reduce guesswork).
I can't actually suggest that you pick a WEBDAV response code that does not exist for HTTP clients using hypertext, but you could, it's totally valid, you're the server coder, you can actually take any HTTP response status code you see fit for your HTTP client of which you are the designer as well:
11.2. 422 Unprocessable Entity
The 422 (Unprocessable Entity) status code means the server
understands the content type of the request entity (hence a
415(Unsupported Media Type) status code is inappropriate), and the
syntax of the request entity is correct (thus a 400 (Bad Request)
status code is inappropriate) but was unable to process the contained
instructions. For example, this error condition may occur if an XML
request body contains well-formed (i.e., syntactically correct), but
semantically erroneous, XML instructions.
IIRC request entity is the request body. So if you're operating with request bodies, it might be appropriate as Julian wrote.
You commented:
IMHO, the text for 400 speaks of malformed syntax. I would assume the syntax here relates to the syntax of HTTP string that the client sends across to the server.
That could be, but it can be anything syntactically expressed, the whole request, only some request headers, or a specific request header, the request URI etc.. 400 Is not specifically about "HTTP string syntax", it's infact the general answer to a client error:
The 4xx class of status code is intended for cases in which the client seems to have erred. Except when responding to a HEAD request, the server SHOULD include an entity containing an explanation of the error situation, and whether it is a temporary or permanent condition. These status codes are applicable to any request method. User agents SHOULD display any included entity to the user.
The important part is here that you must tell the client what went wrong. The status code is just telling that something went wrong (in the 4xx class), but HTTP has not been specifically designed to make a missing query-info part parameter noteable as error condition. By fact, URI only knows that there is a query-info part and not what it means.
If you think 400 is too broad I suggest you pick 404 if the problem is URI related, e.g. $_GET variables.
I don't know about the RFC writers' intentions, but the status code I have seen used in the wild for that case is 400 Bad Request.
422 is a regular HTTP status code; and it is used outside WebDAV. Contrary to what others say, there's no problem with that; HTTP has a status code registry for a reason.
See http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes
Read this carefully:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HTTP_status_codes
422 is a WebDAV-specific thing, and I haven't seen it used for anything else.
400, even though not intended for this particular purpose, seems to be a common choice.
404 is also a viable choice if your API is RESTful or similar (using the path part of the URI to indicate search parameters)
Description as quoted against 400
The request could not be understood by the server due to malformed syntax. The client SHOULD NOT repeat the request without modifications.
(Emphasis mine)
That speaks of malformed syntax, which is not the case when the browser sends a request to the server. Its just the case of missing parameters (while there's no malformed syntax).
I would suggest stick with 404 :)
(Experts correct me if I am wrong anywhere :) )
I need to answer this old question because the most upvoted and accepted answer is plain wrong.
From RFC 9110 - HTTP Semantics:
The 400 (Bad Request) status code indicates that the server cannot or
will not process the request due to something that is perceived to be
a client error (e.g., malformed request syntax, invalid request
message framing, or deceptive request routing).
So 400 is what you have to use.
Do not use 404, because you will completely mislead the API consumer. 404 means that the resource was not found on the server:
The 404 (Not Found) status code indicates that the origin server did
not find a current representation for the target resource or is not
willing to disclose that one exists.