Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

418 I’m a teapot

developer.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 146 posts

Re: 418 I’m a teapot

#101

Post by aseipp »

DanielHB wrote: post #72
hermannj314 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We just had a work party and they invited the whole staff. I was outraged they didn't do a proper controlled A/B test. Management will never know if having fun together was a good use of their money. Idiots.

The problem was people (including management) wanting to talk about where and how to put emojis once we added a few. The less I have to talk to management the better. All those small discussions were essentially pointless and they happened often enough that I was getting annoyed by them. Like, sometimes we would be showing "in development" stuff to clients and then they would interrupt and mention something like "nic…

If they had not been paying attention to what you were showing them, then how would they have noticed the emoji?

Re: 418 I’m a teapot

#102

Post by SoftTalker »

hermannj314 wrote: post #69
DanielHB wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This 418 stuff reminds me of a previous job where we had some arguments about putting emojis in our applications. I was against it and a coworker was for it. Like putting rocket ship emoji when an operation succeeds. My main argument was that if you put things like that in your applications then people start having opinions about it and they want to discuss it and add more to certain places or remove from other place…

We just had a work party and they invited the whole staff. I was outraged they didn't do a proper controlled A/B test. Management will never know if having fun together was a good use of their money. Idiots.

Work parties. Worst thing ever.

Re: 418 I’m a teapot

#103

Post by flir »

epc wrote: post #89
flir wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 422: Unprocessable Content I honestly would have thought 400 Bad Request would cover that? Might be too generic though. Is "422" "ok, I admit it's formatted correctly, but I can't process it for some higher-level reason than syntax"? (Just reading through 4xx codes, and I think I need to use 410 Gone a lot more often. Does anyone know if search engines treat 404 and 410 differently?)

From personal experience search engines don’t honor 404 or 410. I switched much of my personal site to returning 410 over a decade ago and Googlebot still returns on a routine basis re-requesting a document that hasn’t been on the site since 2012.

Well... a thorough "meh" to Google. Thanks for the info though, one less thing for me to care about.

Re: 418 I’m a teapot

#104

Post by palsecam »

jbombadil wrote: post #97
palsecam wrote: post #93

I use 418 as a reply to illegitimate bots. It’s fun and it makes filtering logs easier. Nginx config snippet: # Nothing to hack around here, I’m just a teapot: location ~* \.(?:php|aspx?|jsp|dll|sql|bak)$ { return 418; } error_page 418 /418.html; Example: https://FreeSolitaire.win/wp-login.php (NB: /wp-login.php is WordPress login URL, and it’s commonly blindly requested by bots searching for weak WordPress installs.…

Quick side-note. Thank you for freesolitaire.win. It's such a beautiful implementation of solitaire. Works so well as a PWA, I can enjoy it even without proper internet connection, it's simple, does the basics, but does it perfectly. There's nothing to add to it, but more importantly... nothing to take out. I wish more software was written like this. I've donated already, but I use it so much I'll donate again.

Wow, thanks jbombadil! That’s so heart-warming to hear https://FreeSolitaire.win that much! Thank you again for your kind words (and donation!)

Re: 418 I’m a teapot

#105

Post by smrq »

fastball wrote: post #61
mikepurvis wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely that should be a 401 unauthorized?

Could, but when it comes to handling errors in the frontend, I find it is easier for the discriminator to be the actual status code when possible, rather than needing multiple additional properties.

Surely "when possible" should be "when semantically correct"?

I don't hate fun (see the threads on removing 418 from Node and Go for that), but misusing a joke status code in production to mean something completely unrelated seems less like fun and more like poor design.

Re: 418 I’m a teapot

#107

Post by declan_roberts »

Every time I have encountered this error code in the wild I have been extremely frustrated. Somebody tries to be cheeky, and rather than just return the proper status code (like a 429 or 503) they return this, which breaks a lot of HTTP status code parsing.

Not cheeky or funny. Boring actually. I know I'm boring but I have a job to do.

Re: 418 I’m a teapot

#108

Post by cl0ckt0wer »

declan_roberts wrote: post #107

Every time I have encountered this error code in the wild I have been extremely frustrated. Somebody tries to be cheeky, and rather than just return the proper status code (like a 429 or 503) they return this, which breaks a lot of HTTP status code parsing. Not cheeky or funny. Boring actually. I know I'm boring but I have a job to do.

If your parser can't handle in-spec error codes, then that's a parser problem.

Re: 418 I’m a teapot

#109

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

flir wrote: post #65
9dev wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are definitely missing codes, which is why sometimes the WebDAV status additions get used in purported RESTful APIs—which is semantically wrong, but often carries a lot of helpful meaning. For example, things like 422: Unprocessable Content or 423: Locked are really helpful to convey meaning, but not available in plain HTTP.

> 422: Unprocessable Content I honestly would have thought 400 Bad Request would cover that? Might be too generic though. Is "422" "ok, I admit it's formatted correctly, but I can't process it for some higher-level reason than syntax"? (Just reading through 4xx codes, and I think I need to use 410 Gone a lot more often. Does anyone know if search engines treat 404 and 410 differently?)

> Is "422" "ok, I admit it's formatted correctly, but I can't process it for some higher-level reason than syntax"?

That is my understanding. Something to say that the request is understood as an HTTP request (therefore not 400) but the server doesn't know what to do with it, usually in the context of a POST, or it's otherwise invalid for processing.

Re: 418 I’m a teapot

#110

Post by samatman »

theturtle32 wrote: post #31
anilakar wrote: post #6

Please, never ever again add such features to standards as a joke. Some backend folks have started to return it as an indetermiante error code, which in turn means that all client-side libraries will have to handle it at some level.

They have to handle it anyway. There's nothing in the HTTP specifications that disallows a server from using whatever codes it wants to that aren't specifically specified. There is no "HTTP 527 Server Needs a Nap" but it is perfectly legal for my server to reply to clients with that HTTP status, and clients are expected to handle it like they would handle any other non-specific error in the 5xx class of response code…

This is a great point. I'm going to start calling 418 the brown M&M of server response codes.
Post reply on HN