Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Welcome to Software Development on Codidact!

Will you help us build our independent community of developers helping developers? We're small and trying to grow. We welcome questions about all aspects of software development, from design to code to QA and more. Got questions? Got answers? Got code you'd like someone to review? Please join us.

Post History

77%
+5 −0
Q&A Appropriate HTTP status code for "user confirmation required"

I doubt that there is an actual standard HTTP response code to indicate exactly what you're looking for. 202 (Accepted) is close, but doesn't really seem to me to be about a situation where the cli...

posted 3y ago by Canina‭

Answer
#1: Initial revision by user avatar Canina‭ · 2022-01-12T18:01:58Z (almost 3 years ago)
I doubt that there is an actual standard HTTP response code to indicate exactly what you're looking for. `202` (Accepted) is close, but doesn't really seem to me to be about a situation where the client should resubmit the request; by the definition in the RFCs, it's more of a "the request has been added to the work queue" than a "no action has yet been taken, but the request is acceptable for resubmission".

Even the formal definitions of these status codes go back to [1996](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1945#section-9.2) (RFC 1945) and don't seem to have changed much [since then](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7231#section-6.3). The Web was a very different place back then...

Personally, since the server understood and was able to successfully parse and process the request (only that the outcome isn't yet finalized), I would probably opt for the good old `200` (OK) response with a machine-readable response body indicating to the client that further confirmation is required. For cases where no further confirmation is required, the response would be similar but the response body would indicate either proper success or failure. The response body could be JSON, XML, or something else, depending on other requirements.

The contract between the client and the server then becomes something like HTTP `200` for "meaningfully processed request", and the response body indicating further details about the outcome of that processing. That seems to me to be roughly in line with the intent of an "OK" response from the server, even when the request resulted in no actual action being taken.