I've declared an API call in an interface and was wondering if it is possible to put constraints on some of the parameters. The API I'm accessing has these constraints as well and would like to enforce them in my program.
#GET("/recipes/search")
Call<RecipeResponse> getRecipes(
#Query("cuisine") String cuisine,
#Query("diet") String diet,
#Query("excludeIngredients") String excludeIngredients,
#Query("intolerances") String intolerances,
#Query("number") Integer number,
#Query("offset") Integer offset,
#Query("query") String query,
#Query("type") String type
);
How can I do this?
I know that it is possible to do this with POST request, and passing along an object via the RequestBody through the #Body annotation. Can I do this with a GET request too, where information is passed via the query string?
Thanks!
I think I ended up finding a solution. I've made a class SearchRecipeRequest in which I declare all possible parameters as class variables. In the setters I do the data validation such as checking for null on parameters that are required, or min/max value constraints on integers as specified by the endpoint. I then made a SearchRecipeRequestBuilder class to build such an object like so to make it easier to deal with all those possible parameters:
public class SearchRecipeRequestBuilder {
private String _cuisine = null,
_diet = null,
_excludeIngredients = null,
_intolerances = null,
_query = null,
_type = null;
private Integer _number = null,
_offset = null;
public SearchRecipeRequestBuilder() {}
public SearchRecipeRequest buildRequest() {
return new SearchRecipeRequest(_cuisine, _diet, _excludeIngredients, _intolerances, _number, _offset, _query, _type);
}
public SearchRecipeRequestBuilder cuisine(String cuisine) {
_cuisine = cuisine;
return this;
}
public SearchRecipeRequestBuilder diet(String diet) {
_diet = diet;
return this;
}
public SearchRecipeRequestBuilder excludeIngredients(String excludeIngredients) {
_excludeIngredients = excludeIngredients;
return this;
}
public SearchRecipeRequestBuilder intolerances(String intolerances) {
_intolerances = intolerances;
return this;
}
public SearchRecipeRequestBuilder query(String query) {
_query = query;
return this;
}
public SearchRecipeRequestBuilder type(String type) {
_type = type;
return this;
}
public SearchRecipeRequestBuilder number(Integer number) {
_number = number;
return this;
}
public SearchRecipeRequestBuilder offset(Integer offset) {
_offset = offset;
return this;
}
}
Which allows me to build the request like so:
SearchRecipeRequest request = new SearchRecipeRequestBuilder()
.query("burger")
.buildRequest();
I then pass along that object to a different function that knows how to use the request object to pass it along to the API.
That's how I'm doing it right now, if someone has a better way I'd love to hear it. :)
I got the idea to use the Builder pattern from a different StackOverflow question: Managing constructors with many parameters in Java.
Related
New to WebFlux, reactive, and handlers. I've got things "working", but am not understanding why following code is returning "okay" with empty body, vice "not found".
Clarification: The issue-of-concern is in the final return statement of DemoPOJOHandler.getById(). The "short-circuit" code works as expected (i.e., returns "Bad Request" status), but the "switchIfEmpty" path of the final return statement does not appear to get exercised if a DemoPOJORepo.getById(int) returns Mono.empty().
(Note: I've hacked up a list-based "repo" to avoid dealing with database while figuring out handlers and http return types.)
Router implementation ("/v1" is a set of annotation based RESTful endpoints)...
#Configuration
public class DemoPOJORouter {
#Bean
public RouterFunction<ServerResponse> route(DemoPOJOHandler requestHandler) {
return nest(path("/v2"),
nest(accept(APPLICATION_JSON),
RouterFunctions.route(RequestPredicates.GET("/DemoPOJO"), requestHandler::getAll)
.andRoute(RequestPredicates.GET("/DemoPOJO/{id}"), requestHandler::getById)
.andRoute(RequestPredicates.POST("/DemoPOJO"), requestHandler::add)));
}
}
Handler implementation has been "stripped down" to only the code in question. I have a feeling that much of the style is "still imperative", but I've attempted to put the reactive stuff where it "makes the most sense".
If I supply a bad value on the URI (i.e., "foo"), then I get the http "bad request" returned. But, never seem to get the "not found" that should be generated by "switchIfEmpty" if a validly formatted int value is supplied, but it does not map to an entry in the repo.
#Component
public class DemoPOJOHandler {
public static final String PATH_VAR_ID = "id";
private DemoPOJORepo repo = null;
public Mono<ServerResponse> getById(ServerRequest request) {
Mono<DemoPOJO> monoDemoPOJO = null;
Map<String, String> pathVariables = request.pathVariables();
int id = -1;
checkRepoRef(); // part of the list hack
// short-circuit if request doesn't contain id (should never happen)
if ((pathVariables == null)
|| (!pathVariables.containsKey(PATH_VAR_ID))) {
return ServerResponse.badRequest().build();
}
// short-circuit if bad id value
try {
id = Integer.parseInt(pathVariables.get(PATH_VAR_ID));
} catch(NumberFormatException e) {
return ServerResponse.badRequest().build();
}
// get entity by keyValue
monoDemoPOJO = repo.getById(id);
return monoDemoPOJO
.flatMap(demoPOJO -> ServerResponse.ok()
.contentType(MediaType.APPLICATION_JSON)
.syncBody(demoPOJO)
.switchIfEmpty(ServerResponse.notFound().build()));
}
}
Hack of a list-based repo to avoid dealing with data/APIs while working on handlers and http return types.
// local hack to avoid a database for testing
public class DemoPOJORepo {
private static DemoPOJORepo fpRepo = null;
private static int NUM_ROWS = 100;
private Map<Integer, DemoPOJO> fooPOJOMap;
private DemoPOJORepo() {
initMap();
}
public static DemoPOJORepo getInstance() {
if (fpRepo == null) {
fpRepo = new DemoPOJORepo();
}
return fpRepo;
}
public Mono<DemoPOJO> getById(int id) {
Mono<DemoPOJO> monoDP;
if (fooPOJOMap.containsKey(id)) {
monoDP = Mono.just(fooPOJOMap.get(id));
} else {
monoDP = Mono.empty();
}
return monoDP;
}
private Mono<Void> initMap() {
fooPOJOMap = new TreeMap<Integer, DemoPOJO>();
int offset = -1;
for(int ndx=0; ndx<NUM_ROWS; ndx++) {
offset = ndx + 1;
fooPOJOMap.put(offset, new DemoPOJO(offset, "foo_" + offset, offset+100));
}
return Mono.empty();
}
}
Your brackets are in the wrong place causing the swithIfEmpy to apply to the ServerResponse.ok() publisher not the monoDemoPOJO, replace the return with this and it should work:
return monoDemoPOJO
.flatMap(demoPOJO -> ServerResponse.ok().contentType(MediaType.APPLICATION_JSON).syncBody(demoPOJO))
.switchIfEmpty(ServerResponse.notFound().build());
As I can see the code is right. The response code is Bad request because you are trying to convert "foo" to Integer, and when it throws an exception you are returning a Bad request response, so I think it works perfectly fine.
If you use an Integer id that is not present in your database then the answer must be a not found response
I think I need some feedback on my collection classes - still learning typescript and javascript and these implementations can surely be improved. I am looking forward to any suggestion. I think I do use the generic types in a useful way, any advice here would be appreciated.
The answer I am looking for most is removing the duplicate IHashTable definition from the end of both snippets and moving it to its own file, I cannot get that done it seems. I am even unsure if this IS an interface in the first place. It compiles and works this way, as far as I can see.
The collection types are incomplete and only define the basic most function at the moment. Once I am sure I use the language and its features correct the other functions should not be too difficult.
Here is my HashSet:
import { IHashable } from "./IHashable"
export class HashSet<T extends IHashable> {
private _items: HashTable<T>;
public constructor() {
this._items = {};
}
public Add(key: T): void {
let str: string = key.GetHash();
if (this._items[str] == null) {
this._items[str] = key;
}
else {
throw new RangeError("Key '" + str + "' already exists.");
}
}
public Contains(key: T): boolean {
let str: string = key.GetHash();
return this._items[str] != null;
}
}
interface HashTable<T> {
[key: string]: T;
}
I wonder if I can avoid the checking-before-adding in a way. The javascript-dictionary this relies on does allow duplicates, so to avoid them there is no other way than to check myself?
This is my Dictionary:
import { IHashable } from "./IHashable"
export class Dictionary<T1 extends IHashable, T2> {
private _items: HashTable<KeyValuePair<T1, T2>>;
public constructor() {
this._items = {};
}
public Add(key: T1, value: T2) {
let str: string = key.GetHash();
if (this._items[str] == null) {
let kvp: KeyValuePair<T1, T2> = new KeyValuePair(key, value);
this._items[str] = kvp;
}
else {
throw new RangeError("Key '" + str + "' already exists.");
}
}
public ContainsKey(key: T1): boolean {
let str: string = key.GetHash();
return this._items[str] != null;
}
public Get(key: T1): T2 {
let str: string = key.GetHash();
let kvp: KeyValuePair<T1, T2> = this._items[str];
if (kvp == null) throw new RangeError("Key '" + str + "' not found")
return kvp.Value;
}
}
export class KeyValuePair<T1 extends IHashable, T2> {
private _key: T1;
private _value: T2;
public get Key(): T1 { return this._key; }
public get Value(): T2 { return this._value; }
public constructor(key: T1, value: T2) {
this._key = key;
this._value = value;
}
}
interface HashTable<T> {
[key: string]: T;
}
Both rely on a definition of IHashable (hashABLE and hashTABLE: I should find other names.)
export interface IHashable {
GetHash(): string;
}
The dictionary looks a bit strange, it "wraps" my dictionary into a new type KeyValuePair and then uses this in the javascript dictionary. What I hope to gain by doing this is get my own type for key, in and out, as long as it offers a string by which it can be indexed. - No idea if that makes sense or is completly wrong.
What I am missing is the count of items in the collection, a way to remove items, and a way to iterate over the keys and the values.
Regarding iterating over I will post another question with my implementation of a list and a ForEach over it, hoping iterating the keys or values might be possible in the same way.
Probably the most important question I forgot here: How could the GetHash-Method be build for an own class? I was going to have a static number on my classes, and count up by 1 in the constructor before assign this number to each instance. This would guarantee uniqueness... is there something better?
Thanks for any tip!
Ralf
I've been trying to experiment with model binding to make our API easier to use. When using the API I can't get the model binding to bind when the data is in the body, only when it is part of the query.
The code I have is:
public class FunkyModelBinder : IModelBinder
{
public bool BindModel(HttpActionContext actionContext, ModelBindingContext bindingContext)
{
var model = (Funky) bindingContext.Model ?? new Funky();
var hasPrefix = bindingContext.ValueProvider
.ContainsPrefix(bindingContext.ModelName);
var searchPrefix = (hasPrefix) ? bindingContext.ModelName + "." : "";
model.Funk = GetValue(bindingContext, searchPrefix, "Funk");
bindingContext.Model = model;
return true;
}
private string GetValue(ModelBindingContext context, string prefix, string key)
{
var result = context.ValueProvider.GetValue(prefix + key);
return result == null ? null : result.AttemptedValue;
}
}
When looking at the ValueProvider property on the bindingContext I only see QueryStringValueProvider and RouteDataValueProvider which I think means that if the data is in the body I won't get it. How should I do this? I would like to support posting data as either json or form-encoded.
I am looking into this as well.
WebApis Model Binder comes with two built in ValueProviders.
QueryStringValueProviderFactory & RouteDataValueProviderFactory
Which are searched when you call
context.ValueProvider.GetValue
This question has some code on how to bind data from the body.
how to pass the result model object out of System.Web.Http.ModelBinding.IModelBinder. BindModel?
You could create a custom ValueProvider to do this as well, probably a better idea - which will be searched for the value matching the key. The above link just does this within the model binder, which limits the ModelBinder to looking only in the body.
public class FormBodyValueProvider : IValueProvider
{
private string body;
public FormBodyValueProvider ( HttpActionContext actionContext )
{
if ( actionContext == null ) {
throw new ArgumentNullException( "actionContext" );
}
//List out all Form Body Values
body = actionContext.Request.Content.ReadAsStringAsync().Result;
}
// Implement Interface and use code to read the body
// and find your Value matching your Key
}
I am using JSON.Net to serialize my objects. For eg, if this is my object
Class MainData
{
[JsonProperty("keyValues")]
string val;
}
the data for 'val' is a key value pair string like this key1:value1.
I have a scenario where I should not get the above 'keyValues' name in my final serialized string and instead get a serialized string which looks like this
{
"key1":"value1"
}
Currently with my serializer I am getting this, which is not what I need
{
"keyValues":"key:value1"
}
Can somebody guide me to any documentation/solution to dynamically assign the name of the field instead of using the default variable name/JSONProperty Name defined inside the object?
Thanks a lot in advance.
I've been struggling with this all day, what I've done is used a dictionary object and serialised this
however I had an error message that was "cannot serialise dictionary", should have read the whole message, "cannot serialise dictionary when the key is not a string or object"
this now works for me and gives me a key/value pair
i have the following objects
public class Meal {
public int mealId;
public int value;
public Meal(int MealId, int Value) {
mealId = MealId;
value = Value;
} }
public class Crew
{
public Meal[] AllocatedMeals {
get {
return new Meal[]{
new Meal(1085, 2),
new Meal(1086, 1) }; } }
public int AllocatedMealTotal {
get {
return this.AllocatedMeals.Sum(x => x.value); } }
}
then the following code
Dictionary<string,string> MealsAllocated = crew.AllocatedMeals.ToDictionary(x => x.mealId.ToString(), x => x.value.ToString());
return new JavaScriptSerializer().Serialize(
new {
Allocated = new {
Total = crew.AllocatedMealTotal,
Values = MealsAllocated } )
to get
"Allocated":{"Total":3,"Values":{"1085":"2","1086":"1"}}
I am trying to pass a variable from a method in my Controller to a method in a Model. Since the method in the Model takes one argument (which was designed earlier), I cannot pass my variable as an argument to the method in the Model. And also, the method in this Model is called by other controllers too, so if I change the argument, I have to change all the controllers too, which would be a tedious task.
What I have been trying so far is- I created one MyVariableClass and declared a property. Then I instantiated that class and set the property string to the variable that I wanted to pass. Now, in my Model's method, I instantiated the same MyVariableClass again, but when I did that, the value of the variable was set to null. The code I have right now is -
public ActionResult ItemInformation( string id)
{
//Pass a string to MyVariable
MyVariableVClass params = new MyVariableClass();
params.myVariable = "abc";
//This is what My Model is taking as an argument(id), and I don't want to
//pass mYvariable along with that argument because it will break other controllers
// too which calls this method
var itemInformation = _repository.GetItemInformation(id);
return View(itemInformation);
}
and MyVariableClass
public class MyVariableClass
{
public string myVariable { get; set; }
}
and the method in My Model
public IList<Items> GetItemInformation(string itemId)
{
MyVariableClass webType = new MyVariableClass();
var _params = webType.myVariable;
//Check this variable and perform database query
if (_params =="this")
{
var query = myFirstQuery;
}
else
{
var query = mySecondQuery;
}
//return ....
}
Anybody has solution to this? Thanks in Advance!
Any reason why subclassing your model and overriding the GetItemInformation method wouldn't work? Or, even easier, why not just overload the GetItemInformation method with one that takes two strings? Your other controllers can still use the one that only takes a single string.
public IList<Items> GetItemInformation(string itemId, MyVariableClass webType)
{
var _params = webType.myVariable;
//Check this variable and perform database query
if (_params == "this")
{
var query = myFirstQuery;
}
else
{
var query = mySecondQuery;
}
//return ....
}
public IList<Items> GetItemInformation(string itemId)
{
MyVariableClass fauxType = new MyVariableClass();
fauxType.myVariable = "not this";
return GetItemInformation(itemId, fauxType);
}
Try using session variable.