I have:
GET https://host/clients/1324/emails (1234 is enterpriseId)
New requirements:
Potential clients: will be saved by nationalId, so GET method will keep recovering ok
GET https://host/clients/12345678H/emails (12345678H is nationalId)
New clients: if potential clients become clients we need to update _id mongo document from nationalId to enterpriseId (by replacing doc because _id cannot be updated)
Question:
Since someone becomes a client, front app will send both enterpriseId and nationalId. The first time backend recieves both should update and return updated doc transparently.
So, as it is a GET where should front send each id to follow best practices?
Is it ok with best pratices? GET https://host/clients/1324/emails?nationalId=123456879H
Respected Elders/Programmers/Learned-people,
I have read a very popular answer here about using PUT or POST, but I couldn't decipher from it as to what is the correct way to do so. Almost every answer has comments saying this is wrong/this is right. Mighty confused here.
My requirements:
Sending 2 Json files to the server, one to be inserted in Database and other to be updated. I thought I would use PUT to update, and POST to Insert into the database. That way, on the client side itself I would decide whether to insert or update.
Confusion: Since, the client alone is responsible for its data to be created/updated on the server, even POST in my case upon being repeated would insert the same thing (insert into table values) over and over, behaving as idempotent OR would give an error (Because of primary key conflict). Finally, it would not create something new upon firing it twice.
Question: Is it correct to use PUT for updation, and POST for insertion?
PUT can also be used for creating. What's important is the url. This is generally the accepted pattern:
PUT /collection/1234 <- Update a specific item OR create it
POST /collection <- Add a new item to a collection
Which one is right for you depends on a few things. Does the server determine the url of the new item, or does the client?
If the client can figure out what the url of a new item becomes, using PUT might be better because you can more easily turn it into an idempotent request.
Remember that with a PUT request the intent is always that you are replacing the resource at the target url with a new state.
However, if the server creates the url pattern (maybe you have an auto-incrementing id), POST is better. POST doesn't have to be on the parent collection but it's common.
If you want POST and want idempotence, you need some other way to figure out something was a repeated request. You get that for free with PUT. For example, the Stripe API solves this by adding a non-standard Idempotency-Key header.
I have two clients A and B which performed this operations:
Client A created and .sync()ed a one record collection.
Client B .sync()ed and it received the collection with a single record.
Client A deleted and .sync()ed the collection. At this point there is no collection in both client A (checked via JS api and IndexedDB api) and the server (I checked with http calls).
Client B .sync()ed, but the record is still there.
I don't think this is the intended behavior. What could cause this?
P.S. Client A deletes with virtual: false, because it doesn't need the records in the local db anymore. Might that be it? Does this changes something on the server?
If you use virtual: false you will never notify the server that you have deleted the record.
If you want to sync the deleted record status, you should not use virtual: false. It will get deleted locally after your next sync.
I have been using POST in a REST API to create objects. Every once in a while, the server will create the object, but the client will be disconnected before it receives the 201 Created response. The client only sees a failed POST request, and tries again later, and the server happily creates a duplicate object...
Others must have had this problem, right? But I google around, and everyone just seems to ignore it.
I have 2 solutions:
A) Use PUT instead, and create the (GU)ID on the client.
B) Add a GUID to all objects created on the client, and have the server enforce their UNIQUE-ness.
A doesn't match existing frameworks very well, and B feels like a hack. How does other people solve this, in the real world?
Edit:
With Backbone.js, you can set a GUID as the id when you create an object on the client. When it is saved, Backbone will do a PUT request. Make your REST backend handle PUT to non-existing id's, and you're set.
Another solution that's been proposed for this is POST Once Exactly (POE), in which the server generates single-use POST URIs that, when used more than once, will cause the server to return a 405 response.
The downsides are that 1) the POE draft was allowed to expire without any further progress on standardization, and thus 2) implementing it requires changes to clients to make use of the new POE headers, and extra work by servers to implement the POE semantics.
By googling you can find a few APIs that are using it though.
Another idea I had for solving this problem is that of a conditional POST, which I described and asked for feedback on here.
There seems to be no consensus on the best way to prevent duplicate resource creation in cases where the unique URI generation is unable to be PUT on the client and hence POST is needed.
I always use B -- detection of dups due to whatever problem belongs on the server side.
Detection of duplicates is a kludge, and can get very complicated. Genuine distinct but similar requests can arrive at the same time, perhaps because a network connection is restored. And repeat requests can arrive hours or days apart if a network connection drops out.
All of the discussion of identifiers in the other anwsers is with the goal of giving an error in response to duplicate requests, but this will normally just incite a client to get or generate a new id and try again.
A simple and robust pattern to solve this problem is as follows: Server applications should store all responses to unsafe requests, then, if they see a duplicate request, they can repeat the previous response and do nothing else. Do this for all unsafe requests and you will solve a bunch of thorny problems. Repeat DELETE requests will get the original confirmation, not a 404 error. Repeat POSTS do not create duplicates. Repeated updates do not overwrite subsequent changes etc. etc.
"Duplicate" is determined by an application-level id (that serves just to identify the action, not the underlying resource). This can be either a client-generated GUID or a server-generated sequence number. In this second case, a request-response should be dedicated just to exchanging the id. I like this solution because the dedicated step makes clients think they're getting something precious that they need to look after. If they can generate their own identifiers, they're more likely to put this line inside the loop and every bloody request will have a new id.
Using this scheme, all POSTs are empty, and POST is used only for retrieving an action identifier. All PUTs and DELETEs are fully idempotent: successive requests get the same (stored and replayed) response and cause nothing further to happen. The nicest thing about this pattern is its Kung-Fu (Panda) quality. It takes a weakness: the propensity for clients to repeat a request any time they get an unexpected response, and turns it into a force :-)
I have a little google doc here if any-one cares.
You could try a two step approach. You request an object to be created, which returns a token. Then in a second request, ask for a status using the token. Until the status is requested using the token, you leave it in a "staged" state.
If the client disconnects after the first request, they won't have the token and the object stays "staged" indefinitely or until you remove it with another process.
If the first request succeeds, you have a valid token and you can grab the created object as many times as you want without it recreating anything.
There's no reason why the token can't be the ID of the object in the data store. You can create the object during the first request. The second request really just updates the "staged" field.
Server-issued Identifiers
If you are dealing with the case where it is the server that issues the identifiers, create the object in a temporary, staged state. (This is an inherently non-idempotent operation, so it should be done with POST.) The client then has to do a further operation on it to transfer it from the staged state into the active/preserved state (which might be a PUT of a property of the resource, or a suitable POST to the resource).
Each client ought to be able to GET a list of their resources in the staged state somehow (maybe mixed with other resources) and ought to be able to DELETE resources they've created if they're still just staged. You can also periodically delete staged resources that have been inactive for some time.
You do not need to reveal one client's staged resources to any other client; they need exist globally only after the confirmatory step.
Client-issued Identifiers
The alternative is for the client to issue the identifiers. This is mainly useful where you are modeling something like a filestore, as the names of files are typically significant to user code. In this case, you can use PUT to do the creation of the resource as you can do it all idempotently.
The down-side of this is that clients are able to create IDs, and so you have no control at all over what IDs they use.
There is another variation of this problem. Having a client generate a unique id indicates that we are asking a customer to solve this problem for us. Consider an environment where we have a publicly exposed APIs and have 100s of clients integrating with these APIs. Practically, we have no control over the client code and the correctness of his implementation of uniqueness. Hence, it would probably be better to have intelligence in understanding if a request is a duplicate. One simple approach here would be to calculate and store check-sum of every request based on attributes from a user input, define some time threshold (x mins) and compare every new request from the same client against the ones received in past x mins. If the checksum matches, it could be a duplicate request and add some challenge mechanism for a client to resolve this.
If a client is making two different requests with same parameters within x mins, it might be worth to ensure that this is intentional even if it's coming with a unique request id.
This approach may not be suitable for every use case, however, I think this will be useful for cases where the business impact of executing the second call is high and can potentially cost a customer. Consider a situation of payment processing engine where an intermediate layer ends up in retrying a failed requests OR a customer double clicked resulting in submitting two requests by client layer.
Design
Automatic (without the need to maintain a manual black list)
Memory optimized
Disk optimized
Algorithm [solution 1]
REST arrives with UUID
Web server checks if UUID is in Memory cache black list table (if yes, answer 409)
Server writes the request to DB (if was not filtered by ETS)
DB checks if the UUID is repeated before writing
If yes, answer 409 for the server, and blacklist to Memory Cache and Disk
If not repeated write to DB and answer 200
Algorithm [solution 2]
REST arrives with UUID
Save the UUID in the Memory Cache table (expire for 30 days)
Web server checks if UUID is in Memory Cache black list table [return HTTP 409]
Server writes the request to DB [return HTTP 200]
In solution 2, the threshold to create the Memory Cache blacklist is created ONLY in memory, so DB will never be checked for duplicates. The definition of 'duplication' is "any request that comes into a period of time". We also replicate the Memory Cache table on the disk, so we fill it before starting up the server.
In solution 1, there will be never a duplicate, because we always check in the disk ONLY once before writing, and if it's duplicated, the next roundtrips will be treated by the Memory Cache. This solution is better for Big Query, because requests there are not imdepotents, but it's also less optmized.
HTTP response code for POST when resource already exists
Basically, I want to implement SYNC functionality; where, if internet connection is not available, data gets stored on local sqlite database. Whenever, internet connection is available, SYNC gets into the action.
Now, Say for example; 5 records are stored locally, and then internet connection is available. I want the server to be updated. So, What I do currently is:
Post first record to the server.
Wait for the success of first request.
Post local NSNotification to routine, that the first record has been updated on server & now second request can go.
The routine fires the second post request on server and so on...
Question: Is this approach right and efficient enough to implement SYNC functionality; OR anything I should change into it ??
NOTE: Records to be SYNC will have no limit in numbers.
Well it depends on the requirements on the data that you save. If it is just for backup then you should be fine.
If the 5 records are somehow dependent on each other and you need to access this data from another device/application you should take care on the server side that either all 5 records are written or none. Otherwise you will have an inconsistent state if only 3 get written.
If other users are also reading / writing those data concurrently on the server then you need to implement some kind of lock on all records before writing and also decide how to handle conflicts when someone attempts to overwrite somebody else changes.