I prefer simplicity and using the first example but I’d be happy to hear other options. Here’s a few examples:

HTTP/1.1 403 POST /endpoint
{ "message": "Unauthorized access" }
HTTP/1.1 403 POST /endpoint
Unauthorized access (no json)
HTTP/1.1 403 POST /endpoint
{ "error": "Unauthorized access" }
HTTP/1.1 403 POST /endpoint
{
  "code": "UNAUTHORIZED",
  "message": "Unauthorized access",
}
HTTP/1.1 200 (🤡) POST /endpoint
{
  "error": true,
  "message": "Unauthorized access",
}
HTTP/1.1 403 POST /endpoint
{
  "status": 403,
  "code": "UNAUTHORIZED",
  "message": "Unauthorized access",
}

Or your own example.

    • isoOPA
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      You’re right, I was just giving an example though.

    • sus@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      to be even more pedantic, if we follow the relevant official RFCs for http (formerly 2616, but now 7230-7235 which have relevant changes), a 403 can substitute for a 401, but a 401 has specific requirements:

      The server generating a 401 response MUST send a WWW-Authenticate header field (Section 4.1) containing at least one challenge applicable to the target resource.

      (the old 2616 said 403 must not respond with a request for authentication but the new versions don’t seem to mention that)