We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
From aep-dev/aep-openapi-linter#11, @mkistler has called out that we should include a location header in the HTTP request, to adhere to RFC 9110:
Other possible rules: There must be a 201 response (possibly covered by aep-133-response-schema) The 201 response has a location response header (RFC 9110 Section 15.3.2)
Other possible rules:
There must be a 201 response (possibly covered by aep-133-response-schema) The 201 response has a location response header (RFC 9110 Section 15.3.2)
We should add that. Also a follow-up question: should we be doing more to hotlinking to the RFCs we've adopted and attempt to adhere to in the spec?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
No branches or pull requests
From aep-dev/aep-openapi-linter#11, @mkistler has called out that we should include a location header in the HTTP request, to adhere to RFC 9110:
We should add that. Also a follow-up question: should we be doing more to hotlinking to the RFCs we've adopted and attempt to adhere to in the spec?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: