Skip to content

feat: adds rfc9457 details to openapi spec#188

Draft
vireshnavalli wants to merge 2 commits into
pre-draftfrom
feat/rfc9457-response
Draft

feat: adds rfc9457 details to openapi spec#188
vireshnavalli wants to merge 2 commits into
pre-draftfrom
feat/rfc9457-response

Conversation

@vireshnavalli

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Description

Adds common error responses for 4xx and 5xx HTTP status code of all API routes as per RFC 9457

Issues Addressed

Address the isse #153

Change Type

Please select the relevant options:

  • Fix (change that resolves an issue)
  • New enhancement (change that adds specification content)
  • Content edits (change that edits existing content)

Checklist

  • I have read the CONTRIBUTING document.
  • My changes adhere to the established patterns, and best practices.

Signed-off-by: vireshnavalli <viresh-r.navalli@capgemini.com>
@vireshnavalli vireshnavalli self-assigned this Jun 17, 2026
@vireshnavalli vireshnavalli requested a review from a team as a code owner June 17, 2026 09:37
@vireshnavalli vireshnavalli marked this pull request as draft June 17, 2026 09:38
@@ -1,20 +1,17 @@
---

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There are some formatting overrides throughout this file due to your changes. Can you please revert them?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@singhmj-1 thanks for highlighting, Corrected the formatting.

Signed-off-by: vireshnavalli <viresh-r.navalli@capgemini.com>
@phil-abb

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Issue #153 is in the Gen. Improvements SUP Required column. There was no SUP for this creation.

@ajcraig

ajcraig commented Jun 18, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Issue #153 is in the Gen. Improvements SUP Required column. There was no SUP for this creation.

@vireshnavalli as mentioned on the other PR, please close this and create a SUP within the spec enhancements repo. Then we can collaborate on a joint solution.

Thanks

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants