Expand session token statuses #112

New issue

Open

opened 2025-12-28 18:12:36 +00:00 by sami · 0 comments

sami commented

2025-12-28 18:12:36 +00:00

Owner

Originally created by @carpawell on GitHub (Feb 22, 2024).

I'm always frustrated when I see regular problems but cannot assign some well-known status to them. Session token is a good well-structed candidate. We did it once: https://github.com/nspcc-dev/neofs-api/issues/191. Now we also have validation on the SN side and now such errors can be seen by a user: https://github.com/nspcc-dev/neofs-node/pull/2731, https://github.com/nspcc-dev/neofs-node/pull/2727.

Describe the solution you'd like

Possible status codes:

Wrong token issuer/not signed by container owner
Invalid signature
Wrong session operation
Wrong container

Describe alternatives you've considered

Not sure all of them (or any of them) are required and having a separate code for them can make user's life easier but for the tests a well structured response for such an important NeoFS part may look pretty.

Originally created by @carpawell on GitHub (Feb 22, 2024). ## Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe. I'm always frustrated when I see regular problems but cannot assign some well-known status to them. Session token is a good well-structed candidate. We did it once: https://github.com/nspcc-dev/neofs-api/issues/191. Now we also have validation on the SN side and now such errors can be seen by a user: https://github.com/nspcc-dev/neofs-node/pull/2731, https://github.com/nspcc-dev/neofs-node/pull/2727. ## Describe the solution you'd like Possible status codes: 1. Wrong token issuer/not signed by container owner 2. Invalid signature 3. Wrong session operation 4. Wrong container ## Describe alternatives you've considered Not sure all of them (or any of them) are required and having a separate code for them can make user's life easier but for the tests a well structured response for such an important NeoFS part may look pretty.