I have a Web Api RESTful service that has a few POST endpoints to insert a new object to the database. We want to limit the maximum characters accepted for the object name to 20. Should the DB, API, or UI handle this?
Obviously, we could prevent more than 20 characters on any of those layers. However, if it gets past the UI then the form has been submitted. At that point, we would want the Service layer or the DB layer to return an informative explanation as to why it was not accepted. What would be the best practice to handle this?
Should the DB, API, or UI handle this?
At the very least, your API must handle data validation. Everyone has their own opinions on how REST should work, but one good approach would be to return HTTP 400 (Bad Request), with some content that includes information about why the request was bad.
Client-side checking is a definite bonus on top of this. Ideally you'll never even see this code get hit at your API layer. The client should also be capable of handling the potential "Bad Request" response in a graceful way. If there's ever a mismatch between the rules applied by the API and the client, you'll want the client to recognize that its action didn't succeed, and display an appropriate error to help the user respond to the issue.
Database-level checks are also a good idea if you ever allow data to bypass your API layer, through bulk imports or something. If not, the database might just be one more place you'll have to remember to change if you ever change your validation requirements.
Related
A customer of ours is very persistent that they expect this "from any API" (meaning they don't want to pay for the changes). I seem to have trouble finding clear information on this though.
Say we have an API that creates an appointment for a calendar. Server-side everything was successful, data is committed to the database. API tries to send the HTTP 201 (Created) response, but something goes wrong there. Client ignores the response, or connection dropped, ...
They want our API to undo the database changes in that particular situation.
The question is not how to do this, but rather if this is something most APIs do? Is this standard behavior? Or something similar like refusing duplicate create requests?
The difficult part of course is to actually know if an API has failed to send the response, and as far as I am concerned with respect to the crux of the question, it is not a usual behavior implemented. If the user willingly inputs the data, you can go ahead and store it. If the response doesn't return properly due to timeouts (you are not responsible for user "ignoring" the response), then the client side code can refresh on failure and load fresh data. And the user can delete inputted data themselves(given you provide an endpoint for that)
Depending on the database, it is possible to make all database changes of an API reversible. For example, with SQL, you use [SQL transactions][1] using commit, rollback and savepoints. There is most likely a similar mechanism available for noSQL.
I'm generally following the recommendations when it comes to choosing between HTTP GET and HTTP POST as allowed method for action on controller in ASP.NET MVC.
When there is no change on server side, aka I want to retrieve a resource, HTTP GET is allowed.
When user is about to submit some data that will be persisted, HTTP POST is required.
Now here comes the issue with the gray zone:
What if user wants to download a file?
Usually I would set this as HTTP GET (file is stored in database due to security reasons) as there is no change done on the server.
What if I want to log that file X was downloaded by user Y?
There is now server-side change as new log is created. Is that a good enough reason to change HTTP method from GET to POST?
I've found exact explanation on how to deal with this:
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec9.html
Definition of safe methods:
9.1.1 Safe Methods
Implementors should be aware that the software represents the user in
their interactions over the Internet, and should be careful to allow
the user to be aware of any actions they might take which may have an
unexpected significance to themselves or others.
In particular, the convention has been established that the GET and
HEAD methods SHOULD NOT have the significance of taking an action
other than retrieval. These methods ought to be considered "safe".
This allows user agents to represent other methods, such as POST, PUT
and DELETE, in a special way, so that the user is made aware of the
fact that a possibly unsafe action is being requested.
Naturally, it is not possible to ensure that the server does not
generate side-effects as a result of performing a GET request; in
fact, some dynamic resources consider that a feature. The important
distinction here is that the user did not request the side-effects, so
therefore cannot be held accountable for them.
Important part is emphasized below, which gives resolution to my problem:
Naturally, it is not possible to ensure that the server does not
generate side-effects as a result of performing a GET request; in
fact, some dynamic resources consider that a feature. The important
distinction here is that the user did not request the side-effects, so
therefore cannot be held accountable for them.
So since user did not request the logging to be performed, it is considered to be side-effect and therefore I can continue setting GET as HTTP method for file download.
OK, I know already all the reasons on paper why I should not use a HTTP GET when making a RESTful call to update the state of something on the server. Thus returning possibly different data each time. And I know this is wrong for the following 'on paper' reasons:
HTTP GET calls should be idempotent
N > 0 calls should always GET the same data back
Violates HTTP spec
HTTP GET call is typically read-only
And I am sure there are more reasons. But I need a concrete simple example for justification other than "Well, that violates the HTTP Spec!". ...or at least I am hoping for one. I have also already read the following which are more along the lines of the list above: Does it violate the RESTful when I write stuff to the server on a GET call? &
HTTP POST with URL query parameters -- good idea or not?
For example, can someone justify the above and why it is wrong/bad practice/incorrect to use a HTTP GET say with the following RESTful call
"MyRESTService/GetCurrentRecords?UpdateRecordID=5&AddToTotalAmount=10"
I know it's wrong, but hopefully it will help provide an example to answer my original question. So the above would update recordID = 5 with AddToTotalAmount = 10 and then return the updated records. I know a POST should be used, but let's say I did use a GET.
How exactly and to answer my question does or can this cause an actual problem? Other than all the violations from the above bullet list, how can using a HTTP GET to do the above cause some real issue? Too many times I come into a scenario where I can justify things with "Because the doc said so", but I need justification and a better understanding on this one.
Thanks!
The practical case where you will have a problem is that the HTTP GET is often retried in the event of a failure by the HTTP implementation. So you can in real life get situations where the same GET is received multiple times by the server. If your update is idempotent (which yours is), then there will be no problem, but if it's not idempotent (like adding some value to an amount for example), then you could get multiple (undesired) updates.
HTTP POST is never retried, so you would never have this problem.
If some form of search engine spiders your site it could change your data unintentionally.
This happened in the past with Google's Desktop Search that caused people to lose data because people had implemented delete operations as GETs.
Here is an important reason that GETs should be idempotent and not be used for updating state on the server in regards to Cross Site Request Forgery Attacks. From the book: Professional ASP.NET MVC 3
Idempotent GETs
Big word, for sure — but it’s a simple concept. If an
operation is idempotent, it can be executed multiple times without
changing the result. In general, a good rule of thumb is that you can
prevent a whole class of CSRF attacks by only changing things in your
DB or on your site by using POST. This means Registration, Logout,
Login, and so forth. At the very least, this limits the confused
deputy attacks somewhat.
One more problem is there. If GET method is used , data is sent in the URL itself . In web server's logs , this data gets saved somewhere in the server along with the request path. Now suppose that if someone has access to/reads those log files , your data (can be user id , passwords , key words , tokens etc. ) gets revealed . This is dangerous and has to be taken care of .
In server's log file, headers and body are not logged but request path is . So , in POST method where data is sent in body, not in request path, your data remains safe .
i think that reading this resource:
http://www.servicedesignpatterns.com/WebServiceAPIStyles could be helpful to you to make difference between message API and resource api ?
While reading some articles about writing web servers using Twisted, I came across this page that includes the following statement:
While it's convenient for this example, it's often not a good idea to
make a resource that POSTs to itself; this isn't about Twisted Web,
but the nature of HTTP in general; if you do this, make sure you
understand the possible negative consequences.
In the example discussed in the article, the resource is a web resource retrieved using a GET request.
My question is, what are the possible negative consequences that can arrive from having a resource POST to itself? I am only concerned about the aspects related to the HTTP protocol, so please ignore the fact that I mentioned about Twisted.
The POST verb is used for making a new resource in a collection.
This means that POSTing to a resource has no direct meaning (POST endpoints should always be collections, not resources).
If you want to update your resource, you should PUT to it.
Sometimes, you do not know if you want to update or create the resource (maybe you've created it locally and want to create-or-update it). I think that in that case, the PUT verb is more appropriate because POST really means "I want to create something new".
There's nothing inherently wrong about a page POSTing back to itself - in fact, many of the widely-used frameworks (ASP.NET, etc.) use that method to handle various events that happen on the client - some data is posted back to the same page where the server processes it and sends a new reponse.
I am learning about REST and PUT/DELETE, I have read that both of those (along with GET) is idempotent meaning that multiple requests put the server into the same state.
Does a duplicate PUT/DELETE request ever leave the web browser (when using XMLHttpRequest)? In other words, will the server be updating the same database record for each PUT request, or will duplicate requests be ignored automatically?
If yes, how is using PUT or DELETE different from just using POST?
I read an article which suggested that RESTful web services were the way forward. Is there any particular reason why HTML5 forms do not support PUT/DELETE methods?
REST is just a design structure for data access and manipulation. There's no set-in-stone rules for how a server must react to data requests.
That being said, typically a REST request of PUT or DELETE would be as follows:
DELETE /item/10293
or
PUT /item/23848
foo=bar
fizz=buzz
herp=derp
The requests given are associated with a specific ID. Because of this, telling the server to delete the same ID 15 times will end up with pretty much the same result as calling it once, unless there's some sort of re-numbering going on.
With the PUT request, telling the server to update a specific item to specific values will also lead to the same result.
A case where a command would be non-idempotent would typically involve some sort of relative value:
DELETE /item/last
Calling that 15 times would likely remove 15 items, rather than the same last item. An alternative using HTTP properly might look like:
POST /item/last?action=delete
Again, REST isn't an official spec, it's just a structure with some common qualities. There are many ways to implement a RESTful structure.
As for HTML5 forms supporting PUT & DELETE, it's really up to the browsers to start supporting different methods rather than the spec itself. If all the browsers started implementing different methods for form submission, I'm sure they'd be added to the spec.
With the web going the way it is, a good RESTful implementation is liable to also incorporate some form of AJAX anyway, so to me it seems largely unnecessary.
Does a duplicate PUT/DELETE request ever leave the web browser (when using XMLHttpRequest)?
Yeah, sure. Idempotence is only a convention and it's not enforced. If you make a request, duplicate or not, it will run through.
In other words, will the server be updating the same database record for each PUT request, or will duplicate requests be ignored automatically?
If it conforms to REST it should update the same database record twice, for example running UPDATE user SET name = 'John' twice. There is not guarantee what it will or will not do though, it depends on how it's implemented.
If yes, how is using PUT or DELETE different from just using POST?
It's just a convention. PUT and DELETE requests may or may not be handled differently from POST in the site's code.
I read an article which suggested that RESTful web services were the way forward. Is there any particular reason why HTML5 forms do not support PUT/DELETE methods?
I'm not really sure, to be honest. You can work around this by using a hidden <input> field called _method or similar and set it to DELETE or PUT, and then handle that server side.
PUT operation are idempotent but not safe operation. On success if PUT operation is repeated it will not insert duplicate records. Repeat PUT operation in case of NetworkFailure errors after verifying conditional headers like If-unmodified-since and/or if-match. Don't repeat in case of 4XX or 5XX error codes.
REST aims to establish a syntax convention regarding the HTTP method to use; each back end is free to implement anything they want, devs could break the convention but will cause unnecessary confusion if used by others not involved in the development.
For DELETE, if you delete some item with an ID, the server should responded it's deleted; if delete again, it's no more there so server responded "already removed", also good because your purpose is fulfilled. Same for PUT, because you provide the new status of your resource, the status yet-to-be; if it's already updated, mission complete and it's the same for the client.