[Joker_vD]

No, it is pretty confusing: the difference between 404 from hitting an endpoint that the server doesn't serve (because you forgot to expose this endpoint, oops!) and a 404 that means "we've successfully performed the search in our DB for the business entity you've requested and guarantee you that it does not exist" is rather difficult to tell programmatically.

[wiml]

If the URL identifies a resource (REST-style) and that database entry doesn't exist, then yes, 404 is less confusing response. If the URL identifies an API endpoint (RPC-style) then, sure, tunnel the error inside a "I successfully failed to handle that request" response if you like.

[reshlo]

All URLs used when interacting with an API obviously identify API endpoints. There is no such thing as a URL which is part of an API but which is not an API endpoint.

There is a difference between /api/entity/123 and /api/search with a payload of 123, though.

[tbrownaw]

422 unprocessable content (webdav)

The request couldn't be processed due to semantic errors... perhaps such as not being mapped to a handler :->

I suppose from the right point of view that could also be likened to a reverse proxy not being able to send the request on (502 bad gateway), but sane people would probably find that even more confusing.

There were also attempts to use 204 no content for "I successfully confirmed that what you asked for doesn't exist", but I think I managed to shoot those down.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

I'm open to arguing about which error to return in each case, but surely we can agree that neither of those warrant a 200?

[echoangle]

Why not? I wouldn’t say „I performed the search and there’s 0 results“ is an error condition. It’s just the result of a search, and everything went fine.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

Hm, maybe? I guess it depends on what we mean by search; if myapp.com/search?someproduct finds that there are 0 matches then yeah that's probably a 200, but if myapp.com/products/123456 fails because no product has id 123456 then that's a textbook 404.

[wruza]

It’s both nonsense, cause what you see here is a double conversion from an arbitrary problem domain into http domain and back again. Using a specific http code together with an app-domain code could make sense iff you wanted an intermediate host (a proxy etc) to perform some additional operation based on that status. Otherwise http status doesn’t speak the call language and can be just OK. (400/500 should still be handled by a client).

Back-and-forth conversion is a very poor idea. It works for what was “internet resources” initially (basically files and folders), but later people stretched that on application data models and that creates constant issues because people naturally can’t understand the mapping, cause there’s none. This is not a good idea. Talk to http hosts with http and talk to your client with a language you designed specifically for talking to it. 200 vs non-200 is http level and orthogonal to in-service statuses.

[Joker_vD]

No, the latter is absolutely a 200 because of separation of concerns and layering.

The HTTP server, when it detects "URI handler not found" condition, builds an 404 HTTP response and sends it as a normal payload through the underlying connection instead of turning it into an TLS error packet or an RST packet on TCP level (that's the TCP's standard response for "port handler process not found", after all) or something silly like that, and that is absolutely fine, because the application-level (HTTP) error messages should be transmitted by the transport level (TLS/TCP) just as normal messages would.

The same reasoning holds just the same when we consider the usage of HTTP as a transport-level protocol for some higher-level RPC exchange. Yes, HTTP has some assortment of error codes that superficially look like they can be reused to serve as the upper-layer errors as well but that's a red herring.