我会选择422不可处理实体，当请求无效时使用，但问题不在于语法或身份验证。

作为反对其他答案的论据，使用任何非4xx错误代码将暗示它不是客户端错误，而它显然是。使用非4xx错误代码来表示客户端错误完全没有意义。

It seems that 409 Conflict is the most common answer here, but, according to the spec, that implies that the resource already exists and the new data you are applying to it is incompatible with its current state. If you are sending a POST request, with, for example, a username that is already taken, it's not actually conflicting with the target resource, as the target resource (the resource you're trying to create) has not yet been posted. It's an error specifically for version control, when there is a conflict between the version of the resource stored and the version of the resource requested. It's very useful for that purpose, for example when the client has cached an old version of the resource and sends a request based on that incorrect version which would no longer be conditionally valid. "In this case, the response representation would likely contain information useful for merging the differences based on the revision history." The request to create another user with that username is just unprocessable, having nothing to do with any version conflict.

为了记录，422也是GitHub使用的状态码，当您尝试按已使用的名称创建存储库时。

I think for REST, you just have to make a decision on the behavior for that particular system in which case, I think the "right" answer would be one of a couple answers given here. If you want the request to stop and behave as if the client made a mistake that it needs to fix before continuing, then use 409. If the conflict really isn't that important and want to keep the request going, then respond by redirecting the client to the entity that was found. I think proper REST APIs should be redirecting (or at least providing the location header) to the GET endpoint for that resource following a POST anyway, so this behavior would give a consistent experience.

EDIT: It's also worth noting that you should consider a PUT since you're providing the ID. Then the behavior is simple: "I don't care what's there right now, put this thing there." Meaning, if nothing is there, it'll be created; if something is there it'll be replaced. I think a POST is more appropriate when the server manages that ID. Separating the two concepts basically tells you how to deal with it (i.e. PUT is idempotent so it should always work so long as the payload validates, POST always creates, so if there is a collision of IDs, then a 409 would describe that conflict).

另一个潜在的治疗方法是使用PATCH。PATCH被定义为改变内部状态的东西，不局限于追加。

PATCH将通过允许您更新已经存在的项目来解决这个问题。参见:RFC 5789: PATCH

根据RFC 7231，如果POST处理的结果等同于 现有资源的表示。

208- http://httpstatusdogs.com/208-already-reported怎么样?这是一个选择吗?

在我看来，如果唯一的东西是重复资源，就不应该引发错误。毕竟，客户端和服务器端都没有错误。

也许是在游戏后期，但我在尝试创建REST API时偶然发现了这个语义问题。

为了稍微扩展一下wrkken的回答，我认为您可以根据情况使用409 Conflict或403 Forbidden -简而言之，当用户完全无法解决冲突并完成请求时使用403错误(例如，他们不能发送DELETE请求来显式删除资源)，或者如果可能做一些事情，则使用409。

10.4.4禁止403 服务器理解请求，但拒绝执行。 授权没有帮助，请求不应该重复。如果 请求方法不是HEAD，服务器希望公开 为什么要求没有被满足，它应该描述原因 对于实体中的拒绝。如果服务器不希望做出 此信息可用于客户端，状态代码404(不是 Found)可以代替。

现在，有人说“403”，就会想到权限或身份验证问题，但规范说，这基本上是服务器告诉客户端它不会这样做，不要再问了，这就是客户端不应该这样做的原因。

至于PUT vs. POST…当用户没有办法或不应该为资源创建标识符时，POST应该用于创建资源的新实例。当资源的标识已知时，使用PUT。

9.6 PUT ... The fundamental difference between the POST and PUT requests is reflected in the different meaning of the Request-URI. The URI in a POST request identifies the resource that will handle the enclosed entity. That resource might be a data-accepting process, a gateway to some other protocol, or a separate entity that accepts annotations. In contrast, the URI in a PUT request identifies the entity enclosed with the request -- the user agent knows what URI is intended and the server MUST NOT attempt to apply the request to some other resource. If the server desires that the request be applied to a different URI, it MUST send a 301 (Moved Permanently) response; the user agent MAY then make its own decision regarding whether or not to redirect the request.