Nah, did some cursory testing and took at look at the PR. Looks like
you got the ones we were observing.
Stian++ !
Josh Cain
Senior Software Applications Engineer, RHCE
Red Hat North America
jcain(a)redhat.com IRC: jcain
On 12/12/2017 04:47 AM, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
Hi Josh,
You're right Keycloak used to return 500 a lot of requests. This has been
fixed in
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/KEYCLOAK-5567. There may still be
some individual codes that is not quite right, but in general this should
be a big improvement to what we had before. If you find any codes that are
wrong in 3.4.1+ PRs would be more than welcome :)
On 11 December 2017 at 21:34, Josh Cain <jcain(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm having some issues in which Keycloak throws 500 responses for what,
> IMHO, should be a non-500 HTTP status code. For instance, take the
> following request:
>
>
http://localhost:8080/auth/realms/master/protocol/saml/clients/null
>
> Keycloak returns a HTTP Status code of 500, with a text error message
> that says "Client not found." Seems like a textbook case for a HTTP 404
> response code.
>
> The reason I ask is that we were hoping to use status codes for some
> monitoring and even traffic shaping + health analysis type things and
> have found them unreliable as an indicator of server function/health.
> Instead, 500's are also used when clients behave poorly (as in the
> example above) and do things like request non-existent clients, use bad
> parameters, or the like. Shouldn't this classification of errors use
> 4XX response codes?
>
> Is the team open to cleaning these up? Happy to help out with some PR's.
>
> --
> Josh Cain
> Senior Software Applications Engineer, RHCE
> Red Hat North America
> jcain(a)redhat.com IRC: jcain
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> keycloak-user mailing list
> keycloak-user(a)lists.jboss.org
>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-user
>