You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@iceberg.apache.org by Eduard Tudenhöfner <et...@apache.org> on 2025/03/14 14:10:02 UTC
[VOTE] Improve OpenAPI documentation around how NamespaceNotEmptyException is treated
Hey everyone,
I'd like to hold a quick VOTE on #12518
<https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12518> that improves the
documentation around how *NamespaceNotEmptyException* is treated when a
non-empty namespace is deleted.
In such a case we do return a 400 and we also return a 400 on a bad
request, thus the client should check the error type to know whether it
received a *NamespaceNotEmptyException*.
This vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
[ ] +1 Improve the documentation in the OpenAPI spec
[ ] +0
[ ] -1 I have concerns because ...
Kind regards,
Eduard
Re: [VOTE] Improve OpenAPI documentation around how NamespaceNotEmptyException is treated
Posted by Eduard Tudenhöfner <et...@apache.org>.
Thanks everyone for voting. The vote result is:
+1: 5 (binding), 2 (non-binding)
+0: 0 (binding), 0 (non-binding)
-1: 0 (binding), 0 (non-binding)
I'll get the proposed spec change merged.
On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 4:15 AM Amogh Jahagirdar <2a...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 for 409
>
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 5:11 PM Daniel Weeks <dw...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> +1 as well for 409
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 1:43 PM Ryan Blue <rd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 for the updated 409 code.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 1:41 PM Yufei Gu <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1. Thanks Eduard!
>>>>
>>>> Yufei
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 3:46 AM Eduard Tudenhöfner <
>>>> etudenhoefner@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I have updated the spec to use 409 in order to indicate the
>>>>> NamespaceNotEmptyException
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 7:12 PM Christian Thiel <
>>>>> christian.t.b101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 (non-binding) for the updated 409 Code
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 at 18:30, Ryan Blue <rd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From the issue, it looks like we're using 400 for this because
>>>>>>> that's what the Java client was returning as a generic or unhandled error.
>>>>>>> I don't think that's a good reason to standardize on 400 now that we are
>>>>>>> calling out this error in the spec. Why not choose an error code that
>>>>>>> distinguishes it from a bad request? I think that would be better so that
>>>>>>> we don't have to rely on checking other fields.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 9:00 AM Russell Spitzer <
>>>>>>> russell.spitzer@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 10:17 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +1 (non binding)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 3:10 PM Eduard Tudenhöfner
>>>>>>>>> <et...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Hey everyone,
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > I'd like to hold a quick VOTE on #12518 that improves the
>>>>>>>>> documentation around how NamespaceNotEmptyException is treated when a
>>>>>>>>> non-empty namespace is deleted.
>>>>>>>>> > In such a case we do return a 400 and we also return a 400 on a
>>>>>>>>> bad request, thus the client should check the error type to know whether it
>>>>>>>>> received a NamespaceNotEmptyException.
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > This vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > [ ] +1 Improve the documentation in the OpenAPI spec
>>>>>>>>> > [ ] +0
>>>>>>>>> > [ ] -1 I have concerns because ...
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Kind regards,
>>>>>>>>> > Eduard
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
Re: [VOTE] Improve OpenAPI documentation around how NamespaceNotEmptyException is treated
Posted by Amogh Jahagirdar <2a...@gmail.com>.
+1 for 409
On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 5:11 PM Daniel Weeks <dw...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1 as well for 409
>
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 1:43 PM Ryan Blue <rd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 for the updated 409 code.
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 1:41 PM Yufei Gu <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +1. Thanks Eduard!
>>>
>>> Yufei
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 3:46 AM Eduard Tudenhöfner <
>>> etudenhoefner@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have updated the spec to use 409 in order to indicate the
>>>> NamespaceNotEmptyException
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 7:12 PM Christian Thiel <
>>>> christian.t.b101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1 (non-binding) for the updated 409 Code
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 at 18:30, Ryan Blue <rd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> From the issue, it looks like we're using 400 for this because that's
>>>>>> what the Java client was returning as a generic or unhandled error. I don't
>>>>>> think that's a good reason to standardize on 400 now that we are calling
>>>>>> out this error in the spec. Why not choose an error code that distinguishes
>>>>>> it from a bad request? I think that would be better so that we don't have
>>>>>> to rely on checking other fields.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 9:00 AM Russell Spitzer <
>>>>>> russell.spitzer@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 10:17 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +1 (non binding)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 3:10 PM Eduard Tudenhöfner
>>>>>>>> <et...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > Hey everyone,
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > I'd like to hold a quick VOTE on #12518 that improves the
>>>>>>>> documentation around how NamespaceNotEmptyException is treated when a
>>>>>>>> non-empty namespace is deleted.
>>>>>>>> > In such a case we do return a 400 and we also return a 400 on a
>>>>>>>> bad request, thus the client should check the error type to know whether it
>>>>>>>> received a NamespaceNotEmptyException.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > This vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > [ ] +1 Improve the documentation in the OpenAPI spec
>>>>>>>> > [ ] +0
>>>>>>>> > [ ] -1 I have concerns because ...
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > Kind regards,
>>>>>>>> > Eduard
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
Re: [VOTE] Improve OpenAPI documentation around how NamespaceNotEmptyException is treated
Posted by Daniel Weeks <dw...@apache.org>.
+1 as well for 409
On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 1:43 PM Ryan Blue <rd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 for the updated 409 code.
>
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 1:41 PM Yufei Gu <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> +1. Thanks Eduard!
>>
>> Yufei
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 3:46 AM Eduard Tudenhöfner <
>> etudenhoefner@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I have updated the spec to use 409 in order to indicate the
>>> NamespaceNotEmptyException
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 7:12 PM Christian Thiel <
>>> christian.t.b101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1 (non-binding) for the updated 409 Code
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 at 18:30, Ryan Blue <rd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> From the issue, it looks like we're using 400 for this because that's
>>>>> what the Java client was returning as a generic or unhandled error. I don't
>>>>> think that's a good reason to standardize on 400 now that we are calling
>>>>> out this error in the spec. Why not choose an error code that distinguishes
>>>>> it from a bad request? I think that would be better so that we don't have
>>>>> to rely on checking other fields.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 9:00 AM Russell Spitzer <
>>>>> russell.spitzer@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 10:17 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1 (non binding)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 3:10 PM Eduard Tudenhöfner
>>>>>>> <et...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Hey everyone,
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > I'd like to hold a quick VOTE on #12518 that improves the
>>>>>>> documentation around how NamespaceNotEmptyException is treated when a
>>>>>>> non-empty namespace is deleted.
>>>>>>> > In such a case we do return a 400 and we also return a 400 on a
>>>>>>> bad request, thus the client should check the error type to know whether it
>>>>>>> received a NamespaceNotEmptyException.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > This vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > [ ] +1 Improve the documentation in the OpenAPI spec
>>>>>>> > [ ] +0
>>>>>>> > [ ] -1 I have concerns because ...
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Kind regards,
>>>>>>> > Eduard
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
Re: [VOTE] Improve OpenAPI documentation around how NamespaceNotEmptyException is treated
Posted by Ryan Blue <rd...@gmail.com>.
+1 for the updated 409 code.
On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 1:41 PM Yufei Gu <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1. Thanks Eduard!
>
> Yufei
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 3:46 AM Eduard Tudenhöfner <
> etudenhoefner@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> I have updated the spec to use 409 in order to indicate the
>> NamespaceNotEmptyException
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 7:12 PM Christian Thiel <
>> christian.t.b101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 (non-binding) for the updated 409 Code
>>>
>>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 at 18:30, Ryan Blue <rd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> From the issue, it looks like we're using 400 for this because that's
>>>> what the Java client was returning as a generic or unhandled error. I don't
>>>> think that's a good reason to standardize on 400 now that we are calling
>>>> out this error in the spec. Why not choose an error code that distinguishes
>>>> it from a bad request? I think that would be better so that we don't have
>>>> to rely on checking other fields.
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 9:00 AM Russell Spitzer <
>>>> russell.spitzer@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 10:17 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 (non binding)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 3:10 PM Eduard Tudenhöfner
>>>>>> <et...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Hey everyone,
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > I'd like to hold a quick VOTE on #12518 that improves the
>>>>>> documentation around how NamespaceNotEmptyException is treated when a
>>>>>> non-empty namespace is deleted.
>>>>>> > In such a case we do return a 400 and we also return a 400 on a bad
>>>>>> request, thus the client should check the error type to know whether it
>>>>>> received a NamespaceNotEmptyException.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > This vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > [ ] +1 Improve the documentation in the OpenAPI spec
>>>>>> > [ ] +0
>>>>>> > [ ] -1 I have concerns because ...
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Kind regards,
>>>>>> > Eduard
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>
Re: [VOTE] Improve OpenAPI documentation around how NamespaceNotEmptyException is treated
Posted by Yufei Gu <fl...@gmail.com>.
+1. Thanks Eduard!
Yufei
On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 3:46 AM Eduard Tudenhöfner <et...@apache.org>
wrote:
> I have updated the spec to use 409 in order to indicate the
> NamespaceNotEmptyException
>
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 7:12 PM Christian Thiel <
> christian.t.b101@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 (non-binding) for the updated 409 Code
>>
>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 at 18:30, Ryan Blue <rd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> From the issue, it looks like we're using 400 for this because that's
>>> what the Java client was returning as a generic or unhandled error. I don't
>>> think that's a good reason to standardize on 400 now that we are calling
>>> out this error in the spec. Why not choose an error code that distinguishes
>>> it from a bad request? I think that would be better so that we don't have
>>> to rely on checking other fields.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 9:00 AM Russell Spitzer <
>>> russell.spitzer@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 10:17 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1 (non binding)
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> JB
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 3:10 PM Eduard Tudenhöfner
>>>>> <et...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Hey everyone,
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I'd like to hold a quick VOTE on #12518 that improves the
>>>>> documentation around how NamespaceNotEmptyException is treated when a
>>>>> non-empty namespace is deleted.
>>>>> > In such a case we do return a 400 and we also return a 400 on a bad
>>>>> request, thus the client should check the error type to know whether it
>>>>> received a NamespaceNotEmptyException.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > This vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > [ ] +1 Improve the documentation in the OpenAPI spec
>>>>> > [ ] +0
>>>>> > [ ] -1 I have concerns because ...
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Kind regards,
>>>>> > Eduard
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>
Re: [VOTE] Improve OpenAPI documentation around how NamespaceNotEmptyException is treated
Posted by Eduard Tudenhöfner <et...@apache.org>.
I have updated the spec to use 409 in order to indicate the
NamespaceNotEmptyException
On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 7:12 PM Christian Thiel <ch...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> +1 (non-binding) for the updated 409 Code
>
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 at 18:30, Ryan Blue <rd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> From the issue, it looks like we're using 400 for this because that's
>> what the Java client was returning as a generic or unhandled error. I don't
>> think that's a good reason to standardize on 400 now that we are calling
>> out this error in the spec. Why not choose an error code that distinguishes
>> it from a bad request? I think that would be better so that we don't have
>> to rely on checking other fields.
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 9:00 AM Russell Spitzer <
>> russell.spitzer@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 10:17 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1 (non binding)
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> JB
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 3:10 PM Eduard Tudenhöfner
>>>> <et...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > Hey everyone,
>>>> >
>>>> > I'd like to hold a quick VOTE on #12518 that improves the
>>>> documentation around how NamespaceNotEmptyException is treated when a
>>>> non-empty namespace is deleted.
>>>> > In such a case we do return a 400 and we also return a 400 on a bad
>>>> request, thus the client should check the error type to know whether it
>>>> received a NamespaceNotEmptyException.
>>>> >
>>>> > This vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
>>>> >
>>>> > [ ] +1 Improve the documentation in the OpenAPI spec
>>>> > [ ] +0
>>>> > [ ] -1 I have concerns because ...
>>>> >
>>>> > Kind regards,
>>>> > Eduard
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>
Re: [VOTE] Improve OpenAPI documentation around how NamespaceNotEmptyException is treated
Posted by Christian Thiel <ch...@gmail.com>.
+1 (non-binding) for the updated 409 Code
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 at 18:30, Ryan Blue <rd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From the issue, it looks like we're using 400 for this because that's what
> the Java client was returning as a generic or unhandled error. I don't
> think that's a good reason to standardize on 400 now that we are calling
> out this error in the spec. Why not choose an error code that distinguishes
> it from a bad request? I think that would be better so that we don't have
> to rely on checking other fields.
>
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 9:00 AM Russell Spitzer <ru...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 10:17 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 (non binding)
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> JB
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 3:10 PM Eduard Tudenhöfner
>>> <et...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hey everyone,
>>> >
>>> > I'd like to hold a quick VOTE on #12518 that improves the
>>> documentation around how NamespaceNotEmptyException is treated when a
>>> non-empty namespace is deleted.
>>> > In such a case we do return a 400 and we also return a 400 on a bad
>>> request, thus the client should check the error type to know whether it
>>> received a NamespaceNotEmptyException.
>>> >
>>> > This vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
>>> >
>>> > [ ] +1 Improve the documentation in the OpenAPI spec
>>> > [ ] +0
>>> > [ ] -1 I have concerns because ...
>>> >
>>> > Kind regards,
>>> > Eduard
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>
Re: [VOTE] Improve OpenAPI documentation around how NamespaceNotEmptyException is treated
Posted by Ryan Blue <rd...@gmail.com>.
From the issue, it looks like we're using 400 for this because that's what
the Java client was returning as a generic or unhandled error. I don't
think that's a good reason to standardize on 400 now that we are calling
out this error in the spec. Why not choose an error code that distinguishes
it from a bad request? I think that would be better so that we don't have
to rely on checking other fields.
On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 9:00 AM Russell Spitzer <ru...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> +1
>
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 10:17 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> wrote:
>
>> +1 (non binding)
>>
>> Regards
>> JB
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 3:10 PM Eduard Tudenhöfner
>> <et...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hey everyone,
>> >
>> > I'd like to hold a quick VOTE on #12518 that improves the documentation
>> around how NamespaceNotEmptyException is treated when a non-empty namespace
>> is deleted.
>> > In such a case we do return a 400 and we also return a 400 on a bad
>> request, thus the client should check the error type to know whether it
>> received a NamespaceNotEmptyException.
>> >
>> > This vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
>> >
>> > [ ] +1 Improve the documentation in the OpenAPI spec
>> > [ ] +0
>> > [ ] -1 I have concerns because ...
>> >
>> > Kind regards,
>> > Eduard
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Improve OpenAPI documentation around how NamespaceNotEmptyException is treated
Posted by Russell Spitzer <ru...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 10:17 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
wrote:
> +1 (non binding)
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 3:10 PM Eduard Tudenhöfner
> <et...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hey everyone,
> >
> > I'd like to hold a quick VOTE on #12518 that improves the documentation
> around how NamespaceNotEmptyException is treated when a non-empty namespace
> is deleted.
> > In such a case we do return a 400 and we also return a 400 on a bad
> request, thus the client should check the error type to know whether it
> received a NamespaceNotEmptyException.
> >
> > This vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
> >
> > [ ] +1 Improve the documentation in the OpenAPI spec
> > [ ] +0
> > [ ] -1 I have concerns because ...
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Eduard
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Improve OpenAPI documentation around how NamespaceNotEmptyException is treated
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
+1 (non binding)
Regards
JB
On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 3:10 PM Eduard Tudenhöfner
<et...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hey everyone,
>
> I'd like to hold a quick VOTE on #12518 that improves the documentation around how NamespaceNotEmptyException is treated when a non-empty namespace is deleted.
> In such a case we do return a 400 and we also return a 400 on a bad request, thus the client should check the error type to know whether it received a NamespaceNotEmptyException.
>
> This vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
>
> [ ] +1 Improve the documentation in the OpenAPI spec
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1 I have concerns because ...
>
> Kind regards,
> Eduard
>
>
>