I have a collection of requests I'm trying to improve and want to be able to use the Key-Value Editing UI in Postman, but I need to pass an object.
rest_data = {
"session_id":"{{sessionId}}",
"dealer_number":{{integralinkCode}},
"customer_id":"12345",
"vehicle_id":null,
"phone":"5555555555",
"amount":"0.01",
"reference_no":"test1234",
"asm_user_id":"{{userId}}",
"message":"test"
}
Currently, I have the key set as "rest_data", and the value holds the object. This works, but I feel like it makes it a bit hard to read. Ideally, I'd like to have the properties of the object as key-value pairs in Postman.
I tried setting the keys in Postman like this rest_data["session_id"] and the value equal to the relevant value, but that didn't work.
My reasoning is so that when making changes to the body, it's easier and I can fill in the description for values and what they should be. Also, you're not able to hover over environmental variables to see their values or use environmental variable autofill within the object.
Can this be done, and if so, how? I'm also open to alternative solutions.
Related
I have a very complex form. I need to get the post parameters from that form in the order they have been submitted. The application is created in ring/compojure.
All the parameters that I can get from ring request are preprocessed (grouped, sorted..)
How do I get the raw parameter list (preferably parsed to key/value vector or some other list)?
Could you provide more information about your project. What HTTP server are you using (http-kit, clj-http, aleph), and what middleware do you have applied in your project?
All parameter based things aren't actually part of the ring spec, but are handled by middleware (see https://github.com/ring-clojure/ring/wiki/Parameters), so it greatly depends on what bits you're currently pulling in.
I'm not aware of any ring middleware that currently exist that do you want, they all seem to parse the parameter list and put it into a hashmap, and if multiple parameters exist with the same key name, they make the value in the hashmap a vector of the items.
That all being said, I have to ask. Why do you need them in a particular order?
Your best option is to create your own middleware. Use the wrap-param middleware as a guide. You just need to do your custom stuff at https://github.com/mmcgrana/ring/blob/master/ring-core/src/ring/middleware/params.clj#L29
That said, I also be wary of expecting the params in a particular order as it will make brittle the client-server communication.
I have what I believe to be common but complicated problem to model. I've got a product configurator that has a series of buttons. Every time the user clicks on a button (corresponding to a change in the product configuration), the url will change, essentially creating a bookmarkable state to that configuration. The big caveat: I do not get to know what configuration options or values are until after app initialization.
I'm modeling this using EmberCLI. After much research, I don't think it's a wise idea to try to fold these directly into the path component, and I'm looking into using the new Ember query string additions. That should work for allowing bookmarkability, but I still have the problem of not knowing what those query parameters are until after initialization.
What I need is a way to allow my Ember app to query the server initially for a list of parameters it should accept. On the link above, the documentation uses the parameter 'filteredArticles' for a computed property. Within the associated function, they've hard-coded the value that the computed property should filter by. Is it a good idea to try to extend this somehow to be generalizable, with arguments? Can I even add query parameters on the fly? I was hoping for an assessment of the validity of this approach before I get stuck down the rabbit hole with it.
I dealt with a similar issue when generating a preview popup of a user's changes. The previewed model had a dynamic set of properties that could not be predetermined. The solution I came up with was to base64 encode a set of data and use that as the query param.
Your url would have something like this ?filter=ICLkvaDlpb0iLAogICJtc2dfa3
The query param is bound to a 2-way computed that takes in a base64 string and outputs a json obj,
JSON.parse(atob(serializedPreview));
as well as doing the reverse: take in a json obj and output a base64 string.
serializedPreview = btoa(JSON.stringify(filterParams));
You'll need some logic to prevent empty json objects from being serialized. In that case, you should just set the query param as null, and remove it from your url.
Using this pattern, you can store just about anything you want in your query params and still have the url as shareable. However, the downside is that your url's query params are obfuscated from your users, but I imagine that most users don't really read/edit query params by hand.
I'm running my applications on CF 9. I created a CFC to concentrate my cookie handling instead of all the tags strewn about. It is simple. It has two attributes (name, value), and has 5 methods (setCookie, deleteCookie, verifyCookie, clearAllCookies, and init).
Since I wanted this method to be available throughout the application, I put this code in the onApplicationStart method of my application.cfc file:
application.oCookie = createObject("com.mycookie").init();
When I need to set a cookie in any code file I just call it like so:
application.oCookie.name="testCookieName";
application.oCookie.value="testCookieValue";
application.oCookie.setCookie();
My question is: Do I need to put a lock on this code each time I do this? If two separate users were to be on pages accessing this code at the same exact instant, can I end up with mixed up cookie values being set?
To make your oCookie thread-safe, it has to be a singleton (with no state) that only acts as a thin layer to the <cfcookie> or the cookie scope.
Therefore you should design your com.mycookie so that it accepts application.oCookie.setCookie(name, value) instead. And make sure you var-scope everything and don't store anything in the variables scope of mycookie.
And I don't think you need to use cflock.
If you haven't already, you may want to checkout WireBox.
I've got a quick question regarding the use of repositories. But the best way to ask is to show a bit of pseudocode and you guys tell me what the result should be
Get a record from the repository with ID of 1 (assume it exists)
Edit a couple of properties
Query the repository again for an item with ID of 1
Result = ??
Should I get the object with updated values or the object without (original state), bearing in mind that since updating the values of properties (step 2) I have not told the repository to update this record.
I think I should get a copy of the original item and not a reference to the edited version.
Please tell me what is correct.
Cheers
The repository pattern is suppose to act like a collection of your objects, so ideally I think it should return the same object instance which would have the updates in it.
Generally there is an identity map somewhere so your repositories can keep track of what has already been loaded. With an identity map, when you fetch an object with the same Id you should always get the already loaded object back regardless of how many times. This is how all more sophisticated ORMs work and is generally a good practice. An identity map helps keep things in sync while you are in the same transaction and saves you some data access.
NHibernate's session has an identity map it keeps track of so you don't have to worry about trying to implement your own in your repositories. Also I believe you can use NHibernate's stateless session if you want to load another instance without change tracking, but I'm not positive on that.
Judging from your past questions I'm assuming you are using LINQ/C#?
If you are using a DataContext and you haven't called SubmitChanges() then you should get back the original unchanged object.
Just tested it. I was wrong, you get back the changed object.
If you set ObjectTrackingEnabled = false on the DataContext you will get the unchanged object.
I'm taking over a project and wanted to understand if this is common practice using SOAP. The process that is currently in place I have to query all the values before I do an update cause I need to pass back all the values that are not being updated. Does this sound right?
Example Values:
fname=phill
lname=pafford
address=123 main
phone:222-555-1212
So if I just wanted to update the phone number I need to query for the record, get all the values and submit these values for an update.
Example Update Values:
fname=phill
lname=pafford
address=123 main
phone:111-555-1212
I just want to know if this is common practice or should I change the functionality of this?
This is not specific to SOAP. It may simply be how the service is designed. In general, there will be fields that can only be updated if you have the original value: you can't add one to a field unless you know the original value, for instance. The service seems to have been designed for the general case.
I don't think that it is a very "common" practice. However I've seen cases where the old values are posted together with the new values, in order to validate that noone else has updated the values in the meantime.