Urgent: Inconsistent API Error Response Formats in Backend Workflows - Request for Standardization

Need help
1

Dear Bubble.io Support Team,

I am writing to report a significant issue regarding the inconsistency of error response formats generated by backend API workflows. This inconsistency presents considerable challenges for developers aiming to build robust and predictable applications on the Bubble platform.

Problem Description:

Currently, backend API workflows return errors in varying JSON structures depending on the nature of the error. This makes it difficult to implement standardized error handling on the client-side.

For instance:

  1. An error related to an invalid or expired token might return a payload like this:JSON{ "error_class": "Unauthorized", "args": { "code": "1747300531112x555526655198974140" }, "message": null, "translation": "Invalid or expired token: bus|1747016926616x321975835076789400|1747296216638x617151649234425400" }
  2. However, an error due to a missing required parameter in the same backend workflow can return a completely different structure:JSON{ "statusCode": 400, "body": { "status": "MISSING_DATA", "message": "Missing parameter for workflow scenarios: parameter role_of_user" } }

This discrepancy forces developers to write client-side logic to anticipate and parse multiple, distinct error formats, rather than relying on a single, predictable structure. The first error seems to be a system-level Bubble error, while the second is more related to workflow logic defined by the developer, yet both originate from the same API endpoint call.

Impact and Necessity for Modification:

This inconsistency has several negative impacts:

  • Increased Development Complexity: Developers must write additional code to detect and handle different error structures, increasing development time and the potential for bugs in error handling logic.
  • Poor Developer Experience: A lack of standardized error responses makes integrating with Bubble APIs more cumbersome than necessary, especially when compared to other API platforms that offer consistent error schemas.
  • Difficulty in Client-Side Error Handling: It complicates the creation of generic error handling mechanisms on the client-side, as the client needs to check for multiple possible error paths and fields (e.g., error_class vs. body.status or body.message vs. translation).
  • Reduced API Professionalism: For developers using Bubble to create APIs for external consumption, inconsistent error formats can appear unprofessional and make the API harder to integrate with.

Requested Action:

We strongly urge the Bubble.io team to prioritize the standardization of error response formats for all errors originating from backend API workflows. A unified error structure, regardless of whether the error is system-generated (like authentication issues) or a result of workflow logic (like missing parameters or custom errors returned via “Return data from API”), would be immensely beneficial.

Ideally, all API errors should conform to a consistent schema. For example, a standard error response might always include fields such as:

JSON{ "statusCode": <HTTP_STATUS_CODE>, // e.g., 400, 401, 403, 500 "errorCode": "<UNIQUE_ERROR_CODE_STRING>", // e.g., "UNAUTHORIZED", "MISSING_PARAMETER", "INTERNAL_ERROR" "message": "<HUMAN_READABLE_ERROR_MESSAGE>", "details": { ... } // Optional: for more specific error information }

Implementing such a standard would significantly improve the developer experience, reduce the complexity of client-side error handling, and align Bubble’s API capabilities with industry best practices.

We believe addressing this issue would be a valuable enhancement to the Bubble platform and would be greatly appreciated by the developer community.

Thank you for your time and consideration of this important matter.

Sincerely,

2

If you’d like them to change it, you can file a bug report or create an idea on the idea board.

1 Like