What happens if that link performs an action upon a GET request?
Edit: Folks, I agree with you all, but I've seen a lot of garbage out there. Just asking the question for the discussion.
Edit: Folks, I agree with you all, but I've seen a lot of garbage out there. Just asking the question for the discussion.
Didn't we already learn this lesson after all the unsafe-GET problems unveiled when prefetching browser accelerators came on the scene in, IIRC, the late 1990s?
No, this is a terrible response. The action needs to be harmless to execute every time, not just every time after the first time.
HTTP DELETE is conceptually idempotent, but you don't want to be deleting stuff with GET requests. That's why the standard provides a DELETE method! The distinction that really matters is safe/unsafe, not idempotent/unique.
(Do you need to use DELETE for deleting stuff? No, POST is fine.)
You are correct, and the grandparent post has been updated appropriately.
As an aside, this kind of hyperbole really gets under my skin. It wasn't a terrible response. That statement is already technically correct: GET is idempotent, and the definition of idempotency is that it is harmless to repeat.
Your gripe is that OP didn't mention that GET is not only idempotent but must also be "safe"; i.e. that it should not alter the resource. OP got it 50% correct.
Does that omission make his comment a "terrible response"? No -- just incomplete.
- Change the email address registered to my account from owner@gmail.com to new_owner@136.com .
- Instead of sending my direct deposit to account XXXX XXXX at Bank of America, from now on, send it to account YYYY YYYY at Wells Fargo.
- Delete my account.
- Drop the database.
None of these have any business being available to GET requests. Objecting to a misconfigured endpoint on the grounds that the functionality it implements is not idempotent implies that the lack of idempotence is what was wrong. That's a bad thing to do - anyone who takes your lesson to heart is still going to screw themselves over, because you gave them terrible advice. They may do it more than they otherwise would have, because you gave them advice that directly endorses really bad ideas. Idempotence or the lack thereof is beside the point.
Messing up on endpoint idempotence means you might hurt the feelings of a document. Messing up on endpoint safety means you might lose all your data as soon as anyone else links to your homepage. Or worse.
I generally see PUT and PATCH classified as idempotent (for the same input).
Which is why it's bad practice to design your website using GET for actions. That's what POST is for.
I mean, using GET for actions will break so many things -- browser prefetching, link previews, the list is endless. If you use GET for actions, just... yikes.
Both of them are pretty bad. I do not see GET actions breaking anything that is not trash.
The problem with unsafe GET is that it conflicts with reality, not that it conflicts with the standard.
That's only against the standard of you advertise HEAD as a supported method on the resource, which converts it from a good idea in some circumstances to a bad one, so if there is a good example to support your claim, that isn't it.
It's known widely enough now that people have chosen to reinterpret the language of the standard in order to claim that their implementations are compliant -- after making the change specifically to bring themselves out of compliance.
(It's possible that it's been so long that the standard itself has been changed to accommodate this. But regardless, the point stands that standards compliance is not a virtue for its own sake. This wasn't a good idea back when everyone agreed that the standard required it, it's not a good idea now, and future bad ideas do not in general become good ideas by virtue of being specified in standards.)