`ZERO_LENGTH` RANGE status code about neofs-api HOT 5 OPEN

OUT_OF_RANGE doesn't seem to be far off for this.

from neofs-api.

So you mean using OUT_OF_RANGE for zero-length? We do not do it now.

from neofs-api.

Yeah, it should be good enough. @cthulhu-rider?

from neofs-api.

it's documented like this, so, according to them, we may respond with this status on any invalid range

at the same time, for example, gRPC says that Unlike INVALID_ARGUMENT...
(imagine #269) this error indicates a problem that may be fixed if the system state changes

in total, i vote for BAD_REQUEST cuz it more like it's nonsense in all cases while OUT_OF_RANGE is more about object exists (!) but u are out of its range (technically we may respond to [0,0] range with empty data)

P.S. zero RANGE request is the only way to check object existence w/o any object data transmission, feature huh? i don't think so, use HEAD instead

from neofs-api.

Agree that OUT_OF_RANGE is more like an incorrect range (does not fit an object) while [X:0] is about a senseless range.

from neofs-api.