docs: clarify GETTABLE empty-reply and error semantics#30
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes #1.
The manual said GETTABLE's possible per-oid errors are "the same as in
GET", which set the expectation that walking a non-existent table
returns a "no-such-object" error the way GET does. It doesn't: the
underlying get-next/get-bulk queries cannot distinguish an empty table
from one the agent does not implement, so both produce a successful
reply with an empty array.
Manual changes (man page regenerated with pandoc):
GETTABLE replies;
the empty-table and non-existent-table cases;
for the special case of walking a leaf oid.
Documentation only; no behavior change.