1. What is an Idempotent API?
In the context of REST APIs, when making multiple identical requests has the same effect as making a single request – then that REST API is called idempotent.
When we design the REST APIs, we must realize that API consumers can make mistakes. Consumers can write the client code in such a way that there can be duplicate requests coming to the API.
These duplicate requests may be unintentional as well as intentional sometimes (e.g. due to timeout or network issues). We have to make our APIs fault-tolerant, so that duplicate requests do not leave the system unstable.
An idempotent HTTP method is a method that can be invoked many times without the different outcomes. It should not matter if the method has been called only once, or ten times over. The result should always be the same.
Idempotency essentially means that the effect of a successfully performed request on a server resource is independent of the number of times it is executed.
For example, in arithmetic, adding zero to a number is an idempotent operation.
2. Idempotency with HTTP Methods
If we follow the REST principles in designing our APIs, we will have automatically idempotent REST APIs for GET, PUT, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS, and TRACE methods. Only POST APIs will not be idempotent.
POSTis NOT idempotent.GET,PUT,DELETE,HEAD,OPTIONSandTRACEare idempotent.
Let’s analyze how the above HTTP methods end up being idempotent – and why POST is not.
2.1. HTTP POST
Generally – not necessarily – POST APIs are used to create a new resource on the server.
So when we execute the same POST request N times, we will have N new resources on the server. So, POST is not idempotent.
2.2. HTTP GET, HEAD, OPTIONS and TRACE
GET, HEAD, OPTIONS and TRACE methods NEVER change the resource state on the server. They are purely for retrieving the resource representation or metadata at that point in time.
So invoking multiple requests will not have any write operation on the server, so GET, HEAD, OPTIONS, and TRACE are idempotent.
2.3. HTTP PUT
Generally – not necessarily – PUT APIs are used to update the resource state. If you execute a PUT API N times, the very first request will update the resource; the other N-1 requests will just overwrite the same resource state again and again – effectively not changing anything.
Hence, PUT is idempotent.
2.4 HTTP DELETE
2.4.1. Delete with the resource identifier
When you execute N similar DELETE requests, the first request will delete the resource and the response will be 200 (OK) or 204 (No Content).
Other N-1 requests will return 404 (Not Found).
Clearly, the response is different from the first request, but there is no change of state for any resource on the server-side because the original resource is already deleted.
So, DELETE is idempotent.
2.4.1. Delete without the resource identifier
Please keep in mind that some systems may have DELETE APIs like this:
DELETE /item/lastIn the above case, calling operation N times will delete N resources – hence DELETE is not idempotent in this case. In this case, a good suggestion might be to change the above API to POST – because POST is not idempotent.
POST /item/lastNow, this is closer to HTTP spec – hence more REST compliant.
References:
I think your definition contradicts itself. First it says: “Idempotency essentially means that the result of a successfully performed request is independent of the number of times it is executed.”
I want to point the word ‘result’ in there, as it sounds like later result is confused with ‘side-effect’.
If I’m a client and call a DELETE endpoint, with a way to identify requests, I would expect the same result on both requests, not a 204 and later a 404. To do this I would need to pass a way to identify each request (a request id or idempotency UUID) so the server can know if a request has been processed before and what result it returned.
It’s common for many developers to mix idempotency with resubmisstion / replay prevention. But both techniques are very different. A good idempotency solution makes the life of a client a lot simpler as they need to take less error cases into consideration.
Yes, you are right. The word result is ambiguous. Updated the text.
PATCH is missing. It’s ike POST not idempotent since it’s usually used to partially update a resource (for example just sending and setting the first name of a user profile, ignoring the state of the remaining data).
AFAIK PUT can also create a new entity (but always the same, so calling it twice wouldn’t create two entities – basically you’re providing also the ID of the element to be created and if it already exists it’s being overwritten, but it doesn’t have to exist when using PUT the first time). Of course this depends on the implementation. But it would be valid.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. It helps.
When we send a POST request, it will create a new resource. Now if we resend identical POST request N times, conflict error would be returned as an identical record already exists. So, in this case will POST be idempotent (like the DELETE case you mentioned) as the resource on server remains same?
I think you are more like a business/implementation side of question while this post is merely providing concept/theory of REST idempotence in general.
In a POST, the server determines the new ID, not the client, so that would be an improper implementation. PUT is appropriate for creation when the client is allowed to determine the new resource ID, so that scenario should use a PUT, which would be idempotent.
It is a good practice to have a candidate keys that by definition are also unique. That would prevent creating duplicate resources. It is obviously not possible for all types of resources.
Resending identical POST requests N times will create N resources, each with a new ID. In the case an ID is involved, PUT would update the document with the same ID N number of times and produce same result.
Wrong. A put is NOT the same as a create command in a database. It is more like writing out a file out of a text editor. If it does not exist, it creates the resource (return 201), it it does exist it updates it (return 200).
You can achieve idempotency in POST method for building a fault-tolerant API.
The standard approach that you will notice is that of passing the unique Idempotency-key in every request made by the client. we can pass an Idempotency-key with a unique value which is in the UUIDV4 format in the headers. Now in case of network failure or no response from the server , client can send the same request again and again without worrying about a duplicate request.
Let me explain the server side implementation:
On the server side, we have created a middleware. This middleware will check each of the requests coming into the application, and check if the Idempotency-key is present in the headers.
If the Idempotency-key is present in the request, we will query the database, and check if there’s a record corresponding to that Idempotency-key. If there is, the middleware will stop any further execution in the middleware layer itself, and will immediately respond with the saved data as a response.
Otherwise, it will continue to the application layer and will create a new record in the database with the Idempotency-key and the generated response, and finally return the same response to the client.
Therefore, any request with the same Idempotency-key already seen earlier by the server will not be treated as new and server will return the cached response.
Shouldn’t it be “POST /item/last/delete” ?
Can you explain to me what resource is /item/last/delete ? It’s an URL so a resource, but I’m not sure what a “delete” resource is exactly…
Almost 2 yrs now. I have no recall why nodded to that.
I asssume that it is to identify that is a delete operation, because now the method is POST because DELETE is idempotent