I wanted to know if i have multiple resolvers and in the resolvers which extends RESTDataSource . if i get access to context using this.context . is that the context that server has created for that particular request ? The reason I am asking this question is :- I see when from a RESTDatSource if i call another RESTDataSource then occasionally the context is getting over ridden for the chained call to a new context ( which is based on another request to server coming in same same time frame)
I don't know which framework you are using but if you are using ApolloServer then you can have different context object for each request. If you can explain where exactly you are facing this issue I can help more... :)
Related
I'm currently developing an ckan extension, where i need to redirect to a url on a different domain.
In my plugin i defined a custom action function:
#side_effect_free
def download_json(context, data_dict):
toolkit.redirect_to('http://my.json-builder.com?id=1234')
But when i call this endpoint i just get following response:
response screenshot
So i assume that the action function is called, but the redirect_to call does not redirect to the url i defined.
Thanks for your help!
Florian
It's a bit hard to figure out what you're trying to accomplish but here's a few things I hope will help.
Short Answer:
No, you can't redirect from an API endpoint in CKAN. The endpoint response in CKAN is built up and expects certain things from your action. Your action should return some kind of result. In your case it's returning nothing but trying to redirect. A logic action function with IActions is not the same as a Blueprint or pylons controller action.
See Making an API request docs, specifically the breakdown of an API response in CKAN. Also, you can review the pylons implementation that builds up the API response or the flask blueprints implementation.
More Info to help with your approach:
You say you are trying to call an endpoint that redirects a user to a different domain url. Based on this consider the following:
The first thing I thought you wanted was to have a url that someone goes to through the web interface of your site and are redirected to another site. In this case your example code of toolkit.redirect_to('http://my.json-builder.com?id=1234') makes sense and works for a custom controller action using/implemented with IRoutes or if you're using flask then IBlueprint. A User would go to a URL on your site such as http://localhost.com/download_json and be redirected to the new URL/site in their browser.
If you are intending this to be an API call for other users this starts to feel a little bit odd. If a user is using your API, they would expect to get results from your site in JSON CKAN's API is designed to return JSON. Someone consuming your API endpoint would not expect to be redirected to another site e.g. if I called http://localhost.com/api/3/action/download_json I would expect to get a JSON object like
{
help: "http://localhost/api/3/action/help_show?name=download_json",
success: true,
result: {
...
}
}
They would look for success to make sure the call worked and then they would use the result to keep moving forward with their desired processes. If you do want someone via an API to get redirect info I'd likely return the redirect url as the result e.g. result: {'redirect_url': 'http://my.json-builder.com?id=1234'} and document this well in your extension's API docs (e.g. why you're returning this endpoint, what you expect someone to do with it, etc).
If this is an API call for your own extension I'm guessing what you are trying to do is use my.json-builder.com to build a json of something (a dataset maybe?) and return that json as the result at your endpoint or maybe even consume the result to make something else? If that's the case, then in your function you could make the call to my.json-builder.com, process the results and return the results to the user. In this case, you're not actually wanting to redirect a user to a new site but instead make a call to the new site to get some results. If you actually want the results for your extension you don't need an additional endpoint. You could make the call from your extension, consume the results and return the desired object you're trying to create.
Hope this helps and sorry if I've miss-understood completely.
Can cookies be used with ember-network requests? Thanks to this answer I know that they can be used with ember-data API requests, but I need to do a network request in an initializer and it doesn't appear the ember-data store can be accessed that early.
Background:
I'm wanting to persist shopping cart data to the backend for these reasons
The ember-cart addon has a smart way of persisting the cart by jsonifying and data model and dumping to localstore when it changes:
window.localStorage.setItem('cart', JSON.stringify(this.payload()));
then upon return visit parsing the json and pushing it into the store in an instance initializer:
...
payload = JSON.parse(payload);
...
cart.pushPayload(payload);
I'd like to do basically the same thing, but instead of getting the JSON from localstorage, get it from the API via the network.
the store ins't available in an initializer, but ember-network is. So hypothetically I think I can do this. The problem I'm running into is that the cookie isn't being passed.
I get around this with ember-data by using this:
xhrFields: {
withCredentials: true
}
in the application adapter, but I can't find any info about whether there's a similar setting for ember-network. I see the request to my API being made in the initializer, but the api doesn't return anything because the browser cookie isn't included.
The fetch API provides a credentials option..
This is also documented at the whatwg-fetch library used by ember-network.
So basically you can do
fetch("/foobar", { credentials:"include" }).then(...)
Flask documentation says that there are 2 local context: application context, and request context. Both are created on request and torn down when it finishes.
So, what's the difference? What are the use cases for each? Are there any conditions when only one of these are created?
Both are created on request and torn down when it finishes.
It is true in the request lifecycle. Flask create the app context, the request context, do some magic, destroy request context, destroy app context.
The application context can exist without a request and that is the reason you have both. For example, if I'm running from a shell, I can create the app_context, without the request and has access to the ´current_app` proxy.
It is a design decision to separate concerns and give you the option to not create the request context. The request context is expensive.
In old Flask's (0.7?), you had only the request context and created the current_app with a Werkzeug proxy. So the application context just create a pattern.
Some docs about appcontext, but you probably already read it: http://flask.pocoo.org/docs/appcontext/
I’ve got a Web API that I’ve added [Authorize] attributes to, which means that the unit tests I had previously now fail due to them being unauthorised. Here’s a sample of a basic test along with an initialiser method:
[TestInitialize]
public void CreateServer() {
var config = new HttpConfiguration();
WebApiConfig.Configure(config); // Create the routes
var server = new HttpServer(config);
this.client = new HttpClient(server);
}
[TestMethod]
public void MyThings_GET_Returns_All_MyThings() {
var response = this.client.GetAsync("http://localhost/api/1.0/mythings").Result;
var mythings = response.Content.ReadAsAsync<IEnumerable<MyThing>>().Result;
Assert.AreEqual(HttpStatusCode.OK, response.StatusCode);
Assert.AreEqual(4, mythings.Count());
}
What I’m wondering is if there’s any way that I can either make my test log in so that it passes the authorization filter, or if there’s any way that I can pass as ASPXAUTH cookie along with the HttpClient request? Or another way of passing authorization that I haven’t thought of?
Nothing I’ve tried seems to work and I’m struggling to find any helpful info anywhere.
Thanks in advance.
What does your Authorize attribute do when it performs the authorization check? There are quite a few options that come to mind:
Have the authorize filter support multiple means of getting the "authorization token" that it requires (e.g. through an HTTP header or a querystring parameter, etc)
Right after your test initialization, clear out the filter from the configuration (so that it is not called at all). If you choose to go this route then you may wish to pop in a new filter that sets any authorization values that might be used further along the pipeline
If you are using dependency injection, move the "authorization check" into some sort of IAuthorize location that can be updated in your configuration
I would also recommend using RestSharp for making queries to your endpoints as it does a very good job of specifying headers, parameters, etc.
I decided that the way I was going about the problem was fundamentally wrong. Using cookie-based authorisation with Web API is just not a good idea, so I’ve decided to get rid of the authorize attributes and perform API-Key-based authentication instead. This makes it easier to test as I can just pass the correct API key in the request, but also means that I’m not relying on cookies for authorisation.
I'm creating a RESTful web service that allows me to import documents by name. I would import a document using a path like this:
/documents/frequently-asked-questions
If the document doesn't already exist, it would create a new one; otherwise, it would simply overwrite the existing document.
The question I have is whether this is a wrongheaded endpoint for a RESTful service. Normally I'd use POSTs for creates and PUTs for updates. Here it's not known in advance whether the document already exists. If this is reasonable, then what's the best HTTP method? If it's not correct, then what's a better approach?
The HTTP 1.1 specification says for POST:
9.5 POST
The POST method is used to request that the origin server accept the entity enclosed in the request as a new subordinate of the resource identified by the Request-URI in the Request-Line.
And for PUT:
9.6 PUT
The PUT method requests that the enclosed entity be stored under the supplied Request-URI.
Given that, and the fact that PUT is idempotent and POST is not, PUT seems the logical choice here for both your create and update.
Source:
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec9.html#sec9.1.2
Here is my salt test for using POST vs PUT:
The general idea is POST is used for creating, and PUT is used for updating. But in the create-or-update scenario, they both apply. The key here is you already know the resource's ID.
So...
If the URL contains the document's identifier, use PUT, otherwise use POST.
In your case, the identifier is known, and in the URL, so use PUT.