在这个场景中，Ruby on Rails响应404 Not Found。

客户端请求不存在的资源。因此，404 Not Found更合适。

Edit

我发现，在这种情况下，许多开发人员不喜欢找不到404。

如果您不想使用404，我认为，您可以使用以下两个响应代码中的任何一个:

200好了 204无内容

如果你使用200 OK:响应体应该是空json:[]或{}

如果你使用204 OK:响应体应该为空。

起初，我认为204是有意义的，但经过讨论，我相信404是唯一真正正确的回答。考虑以下数据:

用户:约翰，彼得

METHOD  URL                      STATUS  RESPONSE
GET     /users                   200     [John, Peter]
GET     /users/john              200     John
GET     /unknown-url-egaer       404     Not Found
GET     /users/kyle              404     User Not found
GET     /users?name=kyle`        200     []
DELETE  /users/john              204     No Content

背景知识:

the search returns an array, it just didn't have any matches but it has content: an empty array. 404 is of course best known for url's that aren't supported by the requested server, but a missing resource is in fact the same. Even though /users/:name is matched with users/kyle, the user Kyle is not available resource so a 404 still applies. It isn't a search query, it is a direct reference by a dynamic url, so 404 it is. After suggestions in the comments, customizing the message of the 404 is another way of helping out the API consumer to even better distinguish between complete unknown routes and missing entities.

不管怎样，我的意见。

使用公共枚举对响应内容进行编码，以允许客户端打开它并相应地派生逻辑。我不知道你的客户如何区分“数据未找到”404和“网络资源未找到”404之间的区别?您不希望有人浏览到userZ/9，并让客户端怀疑请求是否有效，但没有返回数据。

Twitter使用404，并带有类似“找不到数据”的自定义错误消息。

裁判:https://developer.twitter.com/en/docs/basics/response-codes.html

正如许多人所说的，404会误导客户端，如果请求uri不存在，或者请求的uri不能获取请求的资源，它不允许客户端进行区分。

200状态被期望包含资源数据——所以它不是正确的选择。 204状态意味着完全不同的东西，不应该用作GET请求的响应。

由于这样或那样的原因，所有其他现有状态都不适用。

我看到这个话题在很多地方被反复讨论。对我来说，很明显，要消除围绕这个话题的困惑，就需要一个专门的成功状态。比如“209 -没有资源显示”。

这将是一个2xx状态，因为找不到ID不应该被认为是客户端错误(如果客户端知道服务器DB中的所有内容，它们就不需要向服务器询问任何事情，不是吗?)这个专用状态将解决所有与使用其他状态争论的问题。

唯一的问题是:我如何让RFC接受这个标准?

我强烈反对404，而支持204或200的空数据。或者至少应该使用带有404的响应实体。

请求被接收并被正确处理——它确实触发了服务器上的应用程序代码，客户机可能没有犯任何错误，因此整个客户机错误代码(4xx)类可能不合适。

更重要的是，404的发生有很多技术原因。例如，应用程序在服务器上被暂时停用或卸载，代理连接问题等等。

当然，这种情况下存在5xx错误类，但实际上，受影响的中间件组件通常无法知道错误在它们这一边，然后只是假设错误在客户端，然后响应404而不是500/503。

因此，仅根据状态代码，客户端无法区分404(表示“您正在寻找的东西不存在”)和404(表示“有严重错误，请将此错误报告给运维团队”)。

This can be fatal: Imagine an accounting service in your company that lists all the employees that are due to an annual bonus. Unfortunately, the one time when it is called it returns a 404. Does that mean that no-one is due for a bonus, or that the application is currently down for a new deployment and the 404 is actually coming from the tomcat that it's supposed to be installed into, instead of from the application itself? These two scenarios yield the same status code, but they are fundamentally different in their meaning.

对于需要知道所请求的资源不存在而不是暂时不可访问的应用程序来说，没有响应实体的404几乎是行不通的。

此外，许多客户端框架通过抛出异常来响应404，而不询问进一步的问题。这迫使客户端开发人员捕获异常，对其进行评估，然后基于此决定是否将其记录为由监视组件捕获的错误，或者是否忽略它。这对我来说也不太好。

The advantage of 404 over 204 is that it can return a response entity that may contain some information about why the requested resource was not found. But if that really is relevant, then one may also consider using a 200 OK response and design the system in a way that allows for error responses in the payload data. Alternatively, one could use the payload of the 404 response to return structured information to the caller. If he receives e.g. a html page instead of XML or JSON that he can parse, then that is a good indicator that something technical went wrong instead of a "no result" reply that may be valid from the caller's point of view. Or one could use a HTTP response header for that.

尽管如此，我还是更喜欢204或200的空白回复。这样，请求的技术执行状态就与请求的逻辑结果分开了。2xx的意思是“技术执行ok，这就是结果，处理它”。

我认为在大多数情况下，应该让客户来决定一个空的结果是否可以接受。通过返回404而不返回响应实体(尽管技术执行正确)，客户端可能决定将根本不是错误的情况视为错误。

Another perspective: From an operations point of view a 404 may be problematic. Since it can indicate a connectivity/middleware problem rather than a valid service response, i would not want a fluctuating number of "valid" 404s in my metrics/dashboards that might conceal genuine technical issues (e.g. a misconfigured proxy somewhere in the request routing) that should be investigated and fixed. This is further excarbated by some APIs even using 404 instead of 401/403 (e.g. gitlab does such a thing), to conceal the information that the request URI would have been valid but the request lacked authorization to access it. In this case too a 404 should be treated as a technical error and not as a valid "resource not found" result.

Edit: Wow, this has caused a lot of controversy. Here is another argument against 404: Strictly from a HTTP spec (RFC7231) point of view, 404 does not even mean that a resource does not exist. It only means that the server has no current representation of the requested resource available, and this even may be only temporary. So strictly by HTTP spec, 404 is inherently unreliable regarding the nonexistence of a requested thing. If you want to communicate that the requested thing positively does not exist, do not use 404.