`fail` should return HTTP Status!

[Baterka]

I think fail should return HTTP error status too...

For example: res.status(500).jsend.error({code: 500, message:"Internal Server Error"})

[Prestaul]

@Baterka are you really referring to fail which does not use a code, or are you saying you think that, like your example, if you provide a code with an error (which is not required for jsend errors) that the status-code should be set on the response automatically?

Sorry, I'm not 100% certain that I understood the request.

[Prestaul]

Closing for lack of clarification.

[hoyikxian]

@Prestaul I think what he's trying to say is that if he hits an internal server error, jsend should return the HTTP status as 500 error instead of 200 OK. Because right now as I am using JSend, that's what i realised, is that any response is a 200 OK

[Baterka]

@hoyikxian Exactly what I am trying to say

[Prestaul]

Okay, that makes more sense than what I thought you were saying initially.

This would be a breaking change and I'm thinking it would make the most sense to have have error use 500 and fail use 400 as long as the status code is not already set. Does that makes sense to you, @Baterka and @hoyikxian?

[artyuum]

@Prestaul I'm looking forward to see this feature implemented.

This would be a breaking change and I'm thinking it would make the most sense to have have error use 500 and fail use 400 as long as the status code is not already set.

I'm okay with that.

[Baterka]

Okay, that makes more sense than what I thought you were saying initially.

This would be a breaking change and I'm thinking it would make the most sense to have have error use 500 and fail use 400 as long as the status code is not already set. Does that makes sense to you, @Baterka and @hoyikxian?

It makes perfect sense. I understand approach "define statuses only by JSON" (How described in original specification), but it should have right HTTP statuses too as redundant. I forked your repo and did some changes. Merge it if you like it (but edit tests, because they are failing now)
#13

[hoyikxian]

Okay, that makes more sense than what I thought you were saying initially.
This would be a breaking change and I'm thinking it would make the most sense to have have error use 500 and fail use 400 as long as the status code is not already set. Does that makes sense to you, @Baterka and @hoyikxian?

Yeah that would kind of make sense, but in the future you might want to be more specific with the http error codes. However, I am looking forward to the changes.