From e91e92a6adb6b04ba00562953d49760aa91cb1c8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Dmitrii Andreev Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:51:06 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] HYPERFLEET-1231 - fix: align error-model.md detail field requirement with RFC 9457 and TypeSpec The Standard Fields table marked `detail` as Required=Yes, contradicting both RFC 9457 (SHOULD, not MUST) and the TypeSpec definition (`detail?: string`). Relax to Required=No and add SHOULD guidance to preserve the practical expectation that implementations always populate the field. --- hyperfleet/standards/error-model.md | 6 ++++-- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/hyperfleet/standards/error-model.md b/hyperfleet/standards/error-model.md index 289b6b97..ae2ffaea 100644 --- a/hyperfleet/standards/error-model.md +++ b/hyperfleet/standards/error-model.md @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ --- Status: Active Owner: HyperFleet Platform Team -Last Updated: 2026-01-02 +Last Updated: 2026-06-26 --- # HyperFleet Error Model and Codes Standard @@ -110,9 +110,11 @@ HyperFleet APIs MUST return errors using the [RFC 9457](https://www.rfc-editor.o | `type` | URI | Yes | URI reference identifying the problem type | | `title` | string | Yes | Short, human-readable summary of the problem type | | `status` | integer | Yes | HTTP status code (100-599) | -| `detail` | string | Yes | Human-readable explanation specific to this occurrence | +| `detail` | string | No | Human-readable explanation specific to this occurrence | | `instance` | URI | No | URI reference identifying the specific occurrence | +> HyperFleet implementations SHOULD always populate `detail` to provide actionable context to API consumers. The field is schema-optional per [RFC 9457 Section 3.1](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9457.html#section-3.1), but omitting it degrades the developer experience for partners consuming error responses. + ### HyperFleet Extension Fields In addition to RFC 9457 standard fields, HyperFleet errors include these extension fields: