You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
As discussed yesterday within the TSC I see a challenge with the introduction of the pattern in #373.
API Clients which have added the the x-correlator header (as it is listed in the API definitions) but intentionally or unintentionally left it empty or set it to an empty string ("") might break due to this change:
with the introduction of the pattern these requests will (most?) probably rejected, at least the ones who have set it to an empty string, as the introduced restricting pattern requests a minimum length of 1
My view is that API Provider should be liberal and accept NULL (no value) or empty strings within the x-correlator and treat them as if the header was not present. Within the x-correlator pattern we need to accept also strings with zero-lengths for that.
As discussed yesterday within the TSC I see a challenge with the introduction of the pattern in #373.
API Clients which have added the the x-correlator header (as it is listed in the API definitions) but intentionally or unintentionally left it empty or set it to an empty string (
""
) might break due to this change:My view is that API Provider should be liberal and accept NULL (no value) or empty strings within the x-correlator and treat them as if the header was not present. Within the x-correlator pattern we need to accept also strings with zero-lengths for that.
Originally posted by @hdamker in #366 (comment)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: