I'm trying to migrate our code to Cloud NDB. We have separate namespaces for each of our customers.
How can I safely switch namespace for each request?
I've implemented Flask middleware like the example on the migration documentation
The namespace is a property of the client. So when a request comes in, I determine the email from the accesstoken, and determine which namespace this user belongs to. And then I change the namespace of the client.
I 'm afraid this client.namespace property isn't threadsafe. And i don't want the users to see each others data.
client = ndb.Client()
def ndb_wsgi_middleware(wsgi_app):
def middleware(environ, start_response):
with client.context():
return wsgi_app(environ, start_response)
return middleware
def switch_user(email):
client = context_module.get_context().client
client.namespace = determine_namespace(email)
I could move the creation of the client inside the middleware, but I have read this creates a lot of overhead we want to avoid.
Shouldn't the namespace be a property of the context instead of the client?
This issue is fixed in the python-ndb library
https://github.com/googleapis/python-ndb/pull/388
The nampespace property have been moved to the context level, so I can change it now per request.
It is fixed in release 1.2.0
Related
I'm working on a service fabric project with multiple stateless services. When i try to add versioning as in the code below
[Authorize]
[ApiVersion("2.0")]
[Route("api/v{version:apiVersion}/[controller]")]
public class SessionController : Controller
{
...
}
it's not working when calling the service later using Postman or using some client winforms app i made just to call this service. And when i say it's not working i mean it's not looking for a specific version i placed in the controller.
e.g.
I'm calling http://localhost:1234/api/v1.0/session/set-session and as you can see in my controller i only have version 2.0. Now my API gets hit this way or another no matter what version number i put in.
I added code to the Startup.cs
services.AddApiVersioning(options => {
options.DefaultApiVersion = new ApiVersion(2, 0);
options.AssumeDefaultVersionWhenUnspecified = true;
options.ReportApiVersions = true;
options.ApiVersionReader = new HeaderApiVersionReader("x-api-version");
});
Specific API call looks like this:
[HttpPost]
[Route("set-session")]
public async Task<IActionResult> SetSession([FromBody] SessionModel model)
{ ... }
Can anyone tell me what am i missing or maybe api versioning is not supported in service fabric at all?
Thanks.
Does your solution work locally? Based on what I see, I would suspect - no. This should have nothing to do with Service Fabric at all.
Issue 1
I see that your base class inherits from Controller, which is allowed, but is usually ControllerBase. No concern there, just FYI. The crux of the problem is likely that your controller has not applied the [ApiController] attribute. API Versioning defines IApiControllerSpecification and IApiControllerFilter, which is used to filter which controllers should be considered an API. This is important for developers building applications that have the UI and API parts mixed. A controller is a controller in ASP.NET Core and it was difficult to distinguish these two in the early days. There is now a built-in IApiControllerSpecification that considers any controller with [ApiController] applied to be an API. This can be changed, replaced, or completely disabled using ApiVersioningOptions.UseApiBehavior = false.
If your library/application is only APIs, you can decorate all controllers at once using:
[assembly: ApiController]
Since your controller is not currently being considered an API, all requests matching the route are being directed there. The value 1.0 is being considered an arbitrary string rather than an API version. This is why it matches at all instead of HTTP 400. I suspect you must only have one API and it is defined as 2.0; otherwise, I would expect an AmbiguousActionException.
Issue 2
Your example shows that you are trying to version by URL segment, but you've configured the options to only consider the header x-api-version. This option should be configured with one of the following:
URL Segment (only)
options.ApiVersionReader = new UrlSegmentApiVersionReader();
URL Segment and Header
// registration order is irrelevant
options.ApiVersionReader = ApiVersionReader.Combine(
new UrlSegmentApiVersionReader(),
new HeaderApiVersionReader("x-api-version"));
Default (Query String and URL Segment)
// NOTE: this is the configuration
// options.ApiVersionReader = ApiVersionReader.Combine(
// new QueryStringApiVersionReader(),
// new UrlSegmentApiVersionReader());
Side Note
As defined, using the URL segment and header versioning methodologies don't make sense. You have a single route which requires an API version. A client will always have to include the API version in every request so there is no point to also supporting a header.
If you define 2 routes, then it makes sense:
[Route("api/[controller]")] // match by header
[Route("api/v{version:apiVersion}/[controller]")] // match by url segment
Versioning by URL segment, while common, is the least RESTful. It violates the Uniform Interface constraint. This issue demonstrates yet another problem with that approach. Query string, header, media type, or any combination thereof will all work with the single route template of: [Route("api/[controller]")]
Observation 1
You have configured options.AssumeDefaultVersionWhenUnspecified = true. This will have no effect when versioning by URL segment. It is impossible to provide a default value of route parameter in the middle of a template. The same would be true for api/value/{id}/subvalues if {id} is not specified.
This option will have an effect if you:
Add a second route template that doesn't have the API version parameter
You update your versioning strategy to not use a URL segment
It should be noted that is a highly abused feature. It is meant to grandfather in existing services that didn't previously have explicit versioning because adding it will break existing clients. You should be cognizant of that if that isn't your use case.
I have a Spring Boot application, that is using Spring Security with OAuth 2.0. Currently, it is operating against an Authentication Server based on Spring Example code. However, running our own Auth Server has always been a short-term target to facilitate development, not a long-term goal. We have been using the authorization_code grant type and would like to continue using that, irrespective of the Auth Server implementation.
I am attempting to make changes to use OAuth 2.0 Endpoints in Azure Active Directory, to behave as our Authentication Server. So far, I have a successful call to the /authorize endpoint. But the call to get the /token fails with an invalid request error. I can see the requests going out.
It appears that parameters that Azure states as mandatory are not being populated in the POST request. Looking at the Azure doco, it expects the client_id to be defined in the body of the message posted to the endpoint, and that is not added, by default, by Spring.
Can anyone point me in the right direction for how I can add fields to the Form Map that is used when constructing the Access Token request? I can see where the AccessTokenRequest object is being setup in OAuth2ClientConfiguration....
#Bean
#Scope(value = "request", proxyMode = ScopedProxyMode.INTERFACES)
protected AccessTokenRequest accessTokenRequest(#Value("#{request.parameterMap}")
Map<String, String[]> parameters, #Value("#{request.getAttribute('currentUri')}")
String currentUri) {
DefaultAccessTokenRequest request = new DefaultAccessTokenRequest(parameters);
request.setCurrentUri(currentUri);
return request;
}
Should I be trying to define the map in a request.parameterMap spring property? If so, I'm not too sure how that works.
Or should I be using one of the interfaces defined in the AuthorizationServerConfigurerAdapter class?
I have the information to include when sending the AccessTokenRequest, I just don't know the best way to configure Spring to include it? Thanks for any help.
Actually, I found this out. I needed to change the client authentication scheme. Simply adding the following to my application properties added the client_id to the form....
security.oauth2.client.clientAuthenticationScheme=form
If you're using yaml, then yaml-ize it. Thank you Spring!
I have a Tomcat service running on localhost:8080 and I have installed BlazeDS. I created and configured a simple hello world application like this...
package com.adobe.remoteobjects;
import java.util.Date;
public class RemoteServiceHandler {
public RemoteServiceHandler()
{
//This is required for the Blaze DS to instantiate the class
}
public String getResults(String name)
{
String result = “Hi ” + name + “, the time is : ” + new Date();
return result;
}
}
With what query string can I invoke RemoteServiceHandler to my Tomcat instance via just a browser? Something like... http://localhost:8080/blazeds/?xyz
Unfortunately you can't. First the requests (and responses) are encoded in AMF and second I believe they have to be POSTs. If you dig through the BlazeDS source code and the Flex SDK's RPC library you can probably figure out what it's sending. But AFAIK this hasn't been documented anywhere else.
I think that AMFX (which is AMF in XML) will work for you, using HTTPChannel instead of AMFChannel.
From http://livedocs.adobe.com/blazeds/1/blazeds_devguide/help.html?content=lcarch_2.html#1073189, Channels and channel sets:
Flex clients can use different channel
types such as the AMFChannel and
HTTPChannel. Channel selection depends
on a number of factors, including the
type of application you are building.
If non-binary data transfer is
required, you would use the
HTTPChannel, which uses a non-binary
format called AMFX (AMF in XML). For
more information about channels, see
Channels and endpoints.
This way you can use simple netcat to send the request.
Not sure how authentication will be handled though, you will probably need do a login using Flash, extract the authentication cookie and then submit it as part of your request.
Please update this thread once you make progress so that we all can learn.
I am new to web services. The last time I dealt with SOAP was when I created a bunch of wrapper classes that sent requests and received responses back per some response objects/classes I had created. So I had an object to send certain API requests and likewise a set of objects to hold the response back as an object so I could utilize that 3rd party API.
Then someone came to me and said why not just use the wsdl and a web service. Ok, so today I went and created a "Service Reference". I see that this is what's called a "Proxy Class". You just instantiate an instance of this and then walla you have access to all the methods from the wsdl.
But this leaves me with auth questions. Back when I created my own classes manually, I had a class which exposed properties that I would set then access for things like signature, username, password that got sent along with the Http request that were required by whatever 3rd party API I was using to make API calls.
But then with using a Service Reference, how then would I pass this information just like I had done in my custom classes? For instance I'm going to be working with the PayPal API. It requires you to send a signature and a few other pieces of information like username and password.
// Determins if API call needs to use a session based URI
string requestURI = UseAuthURI == true ? _requestURIAuthBased + aSessionID : _requestURI;
byte[] data = XmlUtil.DocumentToBytes(doc);
// Create the atual Request instance
HttpWebRequest request = CreateWebRequest(requestURI, data.Length);
So how do I pass username, password, signature, etc. when using web service references for each method call? Is it as simple as specifying it as a param to the method or do you use the .Credentials and .URL methods of your proxy class object? It seems to me Credentials means windows credentials but I could be wrong. Is it limited to that or can you use that to specify those required header values that PayPal expects with each method call/API request?
Using Web Service or Web Service Reference
I am running blazeds on the server side. I would like to filter http requests using an http header. My goal is to send extra parameters to the server without changing the signatures of my blazeds services.
On the client side, I am using Flex RemoteObject methods.
With Flex WebService components, it is possible to set an http header using the property httpHeaders. I have not found anything similar on the RemoteObject class...
I couldnt modify http request from flex, instead I can add custom headers to the mx.messaging.messages.IMessage that RemoteObject sends to the server and there, extending flex.messaging.services.remoting.adapters.JavaAdapter (used for accessing Spring beans), it's posible to read the header parameters and put them into the HTTPRequest.
In the flex part, I had to extend mx.rpc.AsyncRequest:
declares a new property "header" and overwrites invoke method that checks if there is a not null value for set the msg.headers.
and mx.rpc.remoting.mxml.RemoteObject:
the constructor creates a new instance of our custom AsyncRequest and overwrite old AsyncRequest and it defines a setHeaders method that set the argument to the custom AsyncRequest.
com.asfusion.mate.actions.builders.RemoteObjectInvoker (extra :P):
this one reads the param declared in the Mate's map RemoteObjectInvoker and puts in the RemoteObject header.
I hope it will be understandable (with my apache english xDDD)
Bye. Agur!
This worked for me using BlazeDS and Spring-Flex 1.5.2
Flex:
use namespace mx_internal;
var service:RemoteObject = new RemoteObject(destination);
var operation:Operation = service[functionName];
operation.asyncRequest.defaultHeaders = {company:'company'};
var token:AsyncToken = operation.send();
Java Spring-Flex:
public class FlexJavaCustomAdapter extends JavaAdapter{
#Override
public Object invoke(Message message) {
String locale = (String) message.getHeader("com.foo.locale");
return super.invoke(message);
}
}
dispatcher-servlet.xml
<bean id="customAdapter" class="org.springframework.flex.core.ManageableComponentFactoryBean">
<constructor-arg value="com.codefish.model.flex.FlexJavaCustomAdapter"/>
</bean>
<flex:message-broker id="_messageBroker" services-config-path="classpath*:/com/codefish/resources/spring/services-config.xml" >
<flex:remoting-service default-adapter-id="customAdapter"
default-channels="my-amf, my-secure-amf" />
</flex:message-broker>
</bean>
RemoteObject uses AMF as the data channel, and is managed in a completely different way than HttpService or WebService (which use Http).
What you can do, is call setCredentials(username,password) and then capture this on the server side using the FlexLoginCommand (either the standard one for your container, or derive your own).
Lookup setCredentials and how you should handle this on both sides (client and server).
I have similar problem, and I afraid there is no simple way to set HTTP header when using AMF. But I've designed following solution.
Flex uses HTTP to transfer AMF, but invokes it through browser interfaces, this allows you to set cookie. Just in document containing application invoke following JavaScript
document.cookie="clientVersion=1.0;expires=2100-01-01;path=/";
Browser should transfer it to server, and you can filter (problem will be if the user will have cookies turned off).
Much more you can invoke JavaScript functions from Flex (more is here: http://livedocs.adobe.com/flex/3/html/help.html?content=passingarguments_4.html).
You might be trying to re-invent the wheel. Is there a reason you can't use the standard HTTP(s) authentication?
A reason I was thinking too to use http headers was for the server to be able to 'recognize' the flex client in the a context of service versionning.
On the server I can always build an indirection/proxy that would allow the different clients to only use 1 end point and route to the right adapter depending on the client version.
The question is on the client side. How would the server identify the flex client token or 'version'. One way is certainly via authentication. But, assuming there is not authentication involved?
We recently run into the same issue and this is how we added our custom headers without creating a subclass:
var operation:AbstractOperation = _remoteSession.getOperation('myRemoteOperation');
var async:AsyncRequest = operation.mx_internal::asyncRequest;
async.defaultHeaders = {my_header:'my_value'};
The AsyncRequest object is actually accessible via the operation object via the mx_internal namespace.
You can debug the $GLOBALS in PHP to see that.
I think this is in the
$GLOBALS['HTTP_RAW_POST_DATA'];
or you can simple do
file_get_contents('php://input');