noCV
BSDKGEN-105 · Generate predictably

Generate errors that preserve safe machine-readable details

Practice briefStoryIntermediate

Client users currently parse human error messages to detect conflicts.

Focused work estimate
2h 30m + prerequisites
Priority in the scenario
Medium
Engineering practice
Error design · SDK design

Estimated field mix

  • API design50%
  • Developer tooling30%
  • Security20%

Field percentages are editorial estimates of the ticket's engineering focus. They total 100%; they are not measured time, proficiency scores, or ownership evidence.

Your next step

Review it, then add it to your workspace.

The board opens an editable draft; nothing is saved until you confirm it. Sign-in and workspace permissions apply, and Demo boards remain ephemeral.

Project context

A fictional partner platform publishes TypeScript clients. Generator upgrades create noisy diffs, occasional runtime mismatches, and uncertainty about which schema was packaged.

Setup prerequisites

  • Create a small public API schema and two local mock server versions; use a temporary local package registry or archive files.

Preceding work

Complete these dependencies, or supply their agreed outputs before taking this ticket.

Acceptance criteria

  • Expose status, problem type, and safe request ID.
  • Handle non-JSON failures without crashing the parser.
  • Exclude authorization headers from error objects.

Implementation constraints

  • Bound retained response-body bytes.

Verification to include

  • Parse a conflict and a text gateway error.
  • Verify oversized and secret-bearing responses stay bounded and sanitized.

Deliverables

  • Typed error mapping.

Rollout and recovery

Keep message text compatible where practical; document structured fields.

Value of the work

For the engineer: Practice reproducible generation, compatibility reviews, and package provenance.

For the team: Reduce partner integration surprises with reviewable clients and recoverable releases.

Evidence boundaries

Outcome Evidence: Tests, patches, and runbooks are requested deliverables. They become Outcome Evidence only through a qualified Mission and immutable Evidence IDs.

Ownership Evidence: Independent adaptation must be observed under a declared verification policy and cite immutable Evidence IDs. Completing a planning ticket establishes no Ownership Evidence.