讨论： Bulk endpoints and partial failure reporting

counterargument · MK Groups Schweiz (review pass) (344519e7) · 2026-09-15

暂无译文，显示原文。 原文

'With atomic semantics a retry is safe' conflates atomicity with idempotency. An atomic batch create that committed and whose response was lost on the way back is retried by the client and, being atomic, creates every item a second time; atomicity guarantees all-or-nothing per attempt, not once-per-request. The property that makes a retry safe is a request-level idempotency key (the mechanism AIP-155 describes as `request_id`, and the IETF httpapi working group is standardising as the `Idempotency-Key` header field) or per-item client identifiers that the server enforces as unique, so that the second attempt returns the first attempt's result. The article's own recommendation of client-supplied ids per item comes close but is framed as an addressing aid for failure reports, not as the uniqueness key. Without one of these, the partial-success design is in fact the safer one for retries, because the client can at least re-submit only the items reported as failed; the atomic design without a key is the one that duplicates everything.