> A 200 OK response tells you the request was accepted. It tells you nothing about what actually happened after.
???
From [0]:
> The HTTP 200 OK successful response status code indicates that a request has succeeded.
From [1]:
> The HTTP 202 Accepted successful response status code indicates that a request has been accepted for processing, but processing has not been completed or may not have started.
Users expect that their ticket been successfully purchased when the gray "Buy" button turned "Green! Yay", this is "the system" or whatever they call it. Just because the request went to backend and returned 200 OK doesn't necessarily mean that everything after that successfully completed, maybe the payment webhook was badly configured, and so on.
It seems pretty clear to me that this is what the author means and are talking about. But I'm not entirely why they're talking about this, or if there is any further point beyond just the "technically correct but ultimately not important" part.
It's the same sort of pedantry as correcting someone's use of their/there/they're. Yes, technically you're correct in what you're talking about, but arguing minutiae that is probably not relevant to the overall discussion.
Current GraphQL-over-HTTP recommends using 200 OK when returning non-successful properly defined reponses:
- ยง6.4.1 (application/json): "The server SHOULD use the 200 status code for every response to a well-formed GraphQL-over-HTTP request, independent of any GraphQL request error or GraphQL field error raised."
Users expect that their ticket been successfully purchased when the gray "Buy" button turned "Green! Yay", this is "the system" or whatever they call it. Just because the request went to backend and returned 200 OK doesn't necessarily mean that everything after that successfully completed, maybe the payment webhook was badly configured, and so on.
It seems pretty clear to me that this is what the author means and are talking about. But I'm not entirely why they're talking about this, or if there is any further point beyond just the "technically correct but ultimately not important" part.