Skip to content

Navigation Menu

Sign in
Appearance settings

Search code, repositories, users, issues, pull requests...

Provide feedback

We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Appearance settings

Feedback on formalising the error codes #2209

Copy link
Copy link
@Agent-Hellboy

Description

@Agent-Hellboy
Issue body actions

I have been reading the new SEP and seeing error code getting chosen out of nowhere, but shouldn't a protocol formalise this, even projects like postgres do this.

A workable formal classing scheme (within -32000..-32099)
Because we only have 100 slots, the most practical structure is two digits:

  • -32 C R → C = class (0–9), R = reason (0–9)
  • Example: -32042 → class 4, reason 2

Suggested class map (example):

  • 0x: General / common
  • 1x: Auth / access
  • 2x: Not found / missing
  • 3x: Validation / state
  • 4x: Interaction / elicitation
  • 5x: Rate limit / quota
  • 6x: Transport / upstream
  • 7x: Capability / negotiation
  • 8x: Data integrity / tamper
  • 9x: Reserved / experimental

it will also help people reason about the error and it's impact , although all error code has same client impact.

Reactions are currently unavailable

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions

      Morty Proxy This is a proxified and sanitized view of the page, visit original site.