Recently, I have been learning about keycloak. I need to integrate the key cloak REST API with my application. For that, I have used their official API Document. In that document they cleanly mentioned about all API request properties and their types.
My Question is, for some property they defind the property type as MAP.
Here that Map is the link if I click that link it navigate to top of the page.
If anyone knows the meanings of MAP property in key cloak API document, Share your knowledge.
My Question is, for some property they defind the property type as
MAP.
It is basically a catch all for a structure that is a Map in json. For example, access MAP means that for the key access its value will be a Map, like the following:
"access":{"key1":value1, ..., "keyN":value2}
or more concrete:
"access":{"manageGroupMembership":true, "view":true, "mapRoles":true, "impersonate": true, "manage":true}
Unlike with the case of
clientConsents < UserConsentRepresentation > array
where you get a more precise definition of the structure of the value associated with the key clientConsents, with the Map it only tells you that is a Map but does not tell anything about the content of that Map. You just can infer that it might contain zero or more keys.
Related
Is it possible to make the same field compulsory for POST and optional for PUT requests for REST API? Or it depends on teqnology used to implement this request?
For example, there is a POST request to create Car objects and this object has a field model_id which is actually chosen from a dictionary of models. And the POST request requires model_id because the car must have model_id defined.
And I want to have a PUT method which changes some field e.g. serial_num, manufacture_date, color etc. even model_id. But I want this PUT method to change model_id as optional parameter, e.g. I just want to change color and it is Ok.
So is this possible in REST? Does some technologies that implement these request could not allow me to make different set of optional/compulsory params for POST ant PUT?
Well, you can do whatever you want here. Nobody will kill you if you check fields in the request body and return an error if model_id is specified (or not).
Some guys use POST method to update entities in API.
If you want to be closer to standards better use PATCH for partial updates.
You can find a lot of interesting info here:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Methods
Use of PUT vs PATCH methods in REST API real life scenarios
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7231#section-4.3.4
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5789
One important thing from 4. source:
The PUT method is already defined to overwrite a resource with a
complete new body, and cannot be reused to do partial changes.
And another one sentence from 3. source:
Generally speaking, all implementation details behind the resource interface are intentionally hidden by the server.
My issue is a, I need only restaurant, bar using google API.
If you need code i'm send you.
this is my base url:- "https://maps.googleapis.com/maps/api/place/"
nearbyURLFragment :- let nearbyURLFragment = "nearbysearch/json?key=%#&location=%f,%f&rankby=distance&type=restaurant,bar"
a single type of proper working.
but here is I'm not getting a proper result.
Quoting the Google API Docs,
Restricts the results to places matching the specified type. Only one
type may be specified (if more than one type is provided, all types
following the first entry are ignored).
The only workaround of this would be to define one in the keyword attribute however this will return very inconsistent results.
The best way to do this is to do two separate API calls with differing types.
I'm trying to create a chat bot that will help users search up motorcycles.
I'm new to API.AI and have set up my entities and their synonyms, my intent and user expressions, as well as references to the entities (#engineSize, #make, #bikeType).
My problem is when I try to add a required action and prompt, and then try to save the intent, I get the following message:
"The following entities reference each other and form an infinite loop: [engineSize]."
Initially I thought I was using the references wrong in the user expressions. I deleted every reference except for one expression which uses all three entities.
I can't figure out what I'm doing wrong. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks! Pix below for further details.
EDIT: I fixed one of the issues of trying to pass a template expression as an example. However, I still get the same error message. I will replace and update my image links to include the edits.
Annotated User expressions
Required Actions
Interestingly enough, the answer to this post would have been difficult to find because the problem was in defining my entities.
In the entity definitions, I included an #ref to the entity itself. ie the bikeType entity contained #bikeType as one of its definitions.
This is not to be mistaken with the User Expressions. As long as the user expression is marked as a Template (the entire line is denoted with an '#' on the far left, as opposed to a large " ), there should be no issues.
Edited for clarity to get at root problem
In the provided user input examples you give the intent, you are supposed to provide general examples and then highlight any text belonging to an entity to map where entities appear in user's inquiries.
In your case, you have input the actual entity reference '#engineSize' as an example belonging to the engineSize entity, creating a self reference.
A proper provided user example would look like:
Also note though that if you are just using entities to store generic information like numbers, addresses, times, etc. it generally makes far more sense to use prebuilt system entities for those categories than create a custom entity, for example #sys.number-integer might be exactly what you need
It looks like you need to get a firmer understanding of entities, for which I would recommend the documentation:
https://docs.api.ai/docs/concept-entities
I'm developing api documentation for a RESTful search API using Api Blueprint. I would like to be able to pass filters to the API so I can assemble:
filter[filtername1]=filtervalue1
filter[filtername2]=filtervalue2
Per this question, I'm using percent encoded square brackets, but unlike this question, it's not possible for us to describe every possible key name:
How to format hash-based parameters in the URL when creating Blueprint API doc?
I want the key name to be variable, since it could be any field in the source data. Does this work?
## Key-Value-Test [/api/v1/keyvaluetest?term={term}&filter%5B{field_name}%5D={field_value}]
+ term
+ filter_field
+ filter_value
Is there a recommended format for a two-dimensional array like this? It doesn't seem like this would work in Dredd because + filter_field doesn't really match filter[filter_field]
I am afraid that API Blueprint and Apiary does not yet allow these kind of dynamic URL definitions.
API Blueprint and Apiary only allows URI Templates as defined in RFC 6570
The following URI Template is not valid according to that RFC
GET /resource?year={year}&month={month}
You can change the URL to define something like the following:
## Key-Value-Test [/api/v1/keyvaluetest{?term,field_name,field_value}]
+ Parameters
+ term: a
+ field_name: b
+ field_value: c
There are two caveats with this method:
You can only give one field name and field value for the parameters. If you want more field parameters, you have to extend the URL.
You have to change the API url which I don't think you would want to.
Please start a feature request at http://support.apiary.io if you have any.
API Blueprint uses URI Templates standard. There are ways to express and expand arrays (see section 3.2.1), however, it expects "standard URI approach", meaning the URI would be expanded as follows:
/api/v1/keyvaluetest?term=yourterm&filter=filtervalue1&filter=filtervalue2
which is a "standard" way of doing arrays, except the most popular web language popularised your way back in 2000s.
The templates are designed for expansion: give it a bunch of variables and a string, and you'll get a properly-formatted string. As far as I am aware, there is no "wild match" (inserting pattern-match variables at a certain position in string).
The only solution I can think of within the realm of URL templates would be taking advantage of explosion modifier (see composite values):
/api/v1/keyvaluetest{?keys*}
which, given associative array of values [(filter%5Bfiltername1%5D, filtervalue1), (filter%5Bfiltername2%5D, filtervalue2) ] should expand properly.
However, I am not sure how to specify those in MSON as I don't think there is a support for "dynamic keys" and I think most of the tooling wouldn't handle it (yet).
Might be worth asking.
My question is straighforward - I think.
Currently the following Uris exist:
http://someserver/service/item GET returns all items
http://someserver/service/item POST creates a new item
http://someserver/service/item/{id} GET returns item with id {id}
http://someserver/service/item/{id} PUT updates item with {id}
What I would like to do is return a blank 'item', like a template for creating new items which contains a list of the object parameters, their types, required or not. The reason for this is I would like to build a generic jquery 'create new' plugin completely ignorant of the data structure, which I could apply to all my new objects.
What is the best way to implement this?
I hope this makes sense and thanks for your time.
I understand an answer provided by Darrel but I would respectfully argue against it.
It seems to me that this template object (resource) is an important part of your application because you want to make it generic. It's a first class citizen resource and we're talking about REST, so it should be given a corresponding treatment. I should be able to GET the template resource, it shouldn't be "hidden" behind POST.
GET http://someserver/service/item/template
Then you can also introduce versioning and variability much more easily when you have a resource accessible via GET.
I do pretty much the same thing. I include a link in my "list of items" resource that you can POST to. The response is a template of a new item. Arguably you could also do a GET to retrieve the template, but I use the opportunity to assign a new Id to the item so my request is not idempotent.