用户侧故障，属于4xx组。这是正确答案https://developers.rebrandly.com/docs/403-already-exists-errors

我的感觉是409冲突是最合适的，但是，在野外当然很少见到:

The request could not be completed due to a conflict with the current state of the resource. This code is only allowed in situations where it is expected that the user might be able to resolve the conflict and resubmit the request. The response body SHOULD include enough information for the user to recognize the source of the conflict. Ideally, the response entity would include enough information for the user or user agent to fix the problem; however, that might not be possible and is not required. Conflicts are most likely to occur in response to a PUT request. For example, if versioning were being used and the entity being PUT included changes to a resource which conflict with those made by an earlier (third-party) request, the server might use the 409 response to indicate that it can't complete the request. In this case, the response entity would likely contain a list of the differences between the two versions in a format defined by the response Content-Type.

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).

由于您提到使用post的对象创建请求包含对象的ID，因此应该使其成为幂等请求。只返回与成功创建请求完全相同的响应。幂等请求使api更简单，例如。现在客户不必担心两种不同的情况(成功，失败)。或者客户端可以安全地重试请求，以防在连接/服务器暂时宕机时出现问题。

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

“302 Found”对我来说听起来合乎逻辑。RFC 2616说除了GET和HEAD之外，它还可以被其他请求回答(当然也包括POST)

但是它仍然让访问者通过RFC访问这个URL来获得这个“已找到”的资源。为了使它直接指向真正的“Found”URL，应该使用“303 See Other”，这是有意义的，但强制另一个调用GET它后面的URL。好的方面是，这个GET是可缓存的。

我想我会用“303 See Other”。我不知道我是否可以响应在主体中发现的“东西”，但我想这样做，以节省到服务器的一次往返。

更新:在重新阅读RFC后，我仍然认为不存在的“4XX+303 Found”代码应该是正确的。然而，“409冲突”是现有的最好的答案代码(正如@ wrkken指出的那样)，可能包括指向现有资源的Location头。