Rename unprocessable_entity -> unprocessable_content.#52097
Closed
ioquatix wants to merge 1 commit into
Closed
Conversation
Contributor
Author
|
@tenderlove the alternative is we update Rack 3.1 to remove the deprecation warnings and re-introduce them in Rack 3.2? |
Contributor
Author
|
After consideration, I think we should do rack/rack#2209 instead. |
Earlopain
added a commit
to Earlopain/rails
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 19, 2024
Using `unprocessable_entity` will emit a warning on Rack 3.2. There have been various PRs in the past for this: * rails#52252 * rails#52192 * rails#52087 * rails#52097 This to me seems like the least invasive change and is also how headers are currently handled.
4 tasks
Earlopain
added a commit
to Earlopain/rails
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 3, 2025
Using `unprocessable_entity` will emit a warning on Rack 3.2. There have been various PRs in the past for this: * rails#52252 * rails#52192 * rails#52087 * rails#52097 This to me seems like the least invasive change and is also how headers are currently handled.
Earlopain
added a commit
to Earlopain/rails
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 23, 2025
Using `unprocessable_entity` will emit a warning on Rack 3.2. There have been various PRs in the past for this: * rails#52252 * rails#52192 * rails#52087 * rails#52097 This to me seems like the least invasive change and is also how headers are currently handled.
byroot
pushed a commit
to Earlopain/rails
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 31, 2025
Using `unprocessable_entity` will emit a warning on Rack 3.2. There have been various PRs in the past for this: * rails#52252 * rails#52192 * rails#52087 * rails#52097 This to me seems like the least invasive change and is also how headers are currently handled.
viralpraxis
pushed a commit
to viralpraxis/rails
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 22, 2025
Using `unprocessable_entity` will emit a warning on Rack 3.2. There have been various PRs in the past for this: * rails#52252 * rails#52192 * rails#52087 * rails#52097 This to me seems like the least invasive change and is also how headers are currently handled.
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
1 participant
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.
Motivation / Background
In Rack 3.1,
unprocessable_entitywas renamed tounprocessable_contentto reflect the current naming conventions. See rack/rack#2137 for more context.The old status code alias/name continues to work but emits a deprecation warning, so we prefer to use the new name where possible while retaining compatibility with old versions of Rack.
Checklist
Before submitting the PR make sure the following are checked:
[Fix #issue-number]