geofencing: Alignment of errors with Commonalities

[maxl2287]

What type of PR is this?

Add one of the following kinds:

• enhancement/feature

What this PR does / why we need it:

Alignement of errors according to Commonalities guideline.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #222

Changelog input

 release-note

- Aligned error code list with Commonalities for geofencing API

[bigludo7]

LGTM

[jlurien]

I would reconsider adding explicit mention to errors such as 405, 406, 409, 410, 412, 415, 429, which are not part of the core of the API logic, and may be implemented by previous layers (access control, etc). This has been also discussed in QOD

[bigludo7]

Hello @maxl2287
This is not aligned with current PR in Commonalities; This one should be merged soon (we have a commonalitie meeting today) so I suggest to wait for alignement.

[bigludo7]

As I try to be consistent :) :) same comments that for Device Status subscription API.

[bigludo7]

Thanks Max
Look good for me.

[maxl2287]

@akoshunyadi @jlurien @bigludo7 same discussion here like in camaraproject/DeviceStatus#193 (comment)

We need now a clear decission:
Either we use all of the errorcodes from the template (incl. e.g. HTTP-410 or just the API relevant codes.)

Wdyt?

[jlurien]

LGTM. IMO we should restrict the codes to the relevant ones for the spec, but the specific list should be discussed in Commonalities and the guidelines and artifacts be adjusted.