The decision that matters
Return a version with the record and require that version when saving. Update only if the stored version still matches, then increment it in the same atomic operation. If the comparison fails, preserve the user’s unsaved content and explain that the record changed. Decide whether to offer a merge, a refreshed comparison or a deliberate retry; silently applying last-write-wins may be inappropriate for important records.
A practical scenario
A project owner changes the deadline while another member edits the description. Without a conflict check, the second request may restore the old deadline from a stale form. A versioned save can reject the stale update and let the second editor review the new deadline before saving their description. The user needs recovery guidance, not just a technical conflict code.
Before you ship
- Make the version comparison and write atomic.
- Keep unsaved content available after a conflict.
- Test simultaneous updates, not only sequential saves.
A useful next step
Choose the records where overwriting another person’s work would be costly. Add a focused concurrency test and design the conflict message alongside the API response. The database rule and the recovery interface need to work together.
Primary reference & further reading
This guide combines general engineering recommendations with an illustrative scenario. Provider behavior can change; check current documentation before applying it. Read our editorial approach.