I am creating a JSON API that implements the JSON:API specification. I have a question about it however, and this question applies more generally to RESTful design in general: What is the recommended way to handle the "creation" of a resource, where one of the attributes is "calculated" by the server?
In my example, I have a POST /auth/tokens endpoint that accepts a user's credentials and returns a JWT. I've used a POST endpoint, because it seems to me that we are creating a token resource, even if that token is not saved to a database. However, according to JSON:API, what would the proper request/response look like? This?:
POST /auth/tokens
{
"data": {
"type": "tokens",
"attributes": {
"email": "...",
"password": "..."
}
}
}
However, does it even make sense to create a token with an email and password? It seems that it would be creating a token for an email/password. Is there a difference?
More importantly, what would the response look like? It seems like it would look something like:
{
"data": {
"type": "tokens",
"attributes": {
"token": "..."
}
}
}
But the specification states:
Every resource object MUST contain an id member and a type member. The values of the id and type members MUST be strings.
Since the tokens aren't saved to the database, I don't really have an ID for them. What should I do?
JSON:API specification doesn't say anything about such case but if you look on some live implementations like https://docs.unit.co/customer-api-tokens#customers-create-customer-bearer-token they use similar approach as you described. It seems to be just ok in this case to omit ID for a resource which is short lived.
Related
I'm using the Keycloak Admin Rest API and would like to create a new client scope and get its id.
To create the client scope I use this endpoint:
http://localhost:8080/admin/realms/master/client-scopes
Body
{
"attributes": {
"display.on.consent.screen": "true",
"include.in.token.scope": "true"
},
"name": "example",
"protocol": "openid-connect"
}
This endpoint doesn't return a result but I need the ID.
To get the ID I could get all client scopes and find the scope with the matching name however I would have thought there would be a simpler way.
E.g. GET http://localhost:8080/admin/realms/master/client-scopes then filter through the results to find a matching name.
Is it possible to get a client scope by name?
Is it possible to get a client scope by name?
Unfortunately, not, which is a pity because the 'name' is unique. If you look at the keycloak Rest Admin API you can see the followings GET for the client-scopes:
GET /{realm}/client-scopes
and
GET /{realm}/client-scopes/{id}
And none of those endpoints accepts as parameters 'name'.
Notwithstanding, as #csbrogi and #Jan Garaj have pointed out in the comment section, since you:
(..) create a new client scope and get its id.
You can retrieve the ID of the client-scope that was just created from the header location:
In the Keycloak, usually POST methods returns 201 or 200 OK without body as experienced. Thus, you cannot get the ID directly from response. What you can do is; assign a ID while creating scope as below body and you simply will have it.
{
"id": "da5a68f1-058c-481a-bf84-deb95b1f21aa",
"attributes": {
"display.on.consent.screen": "true",
"include.in.token.scope": "true"
},
"name": "example",
"protocol": "openid-connect"
}
I have the following data structure that contains an array of sectionIds. They are stored in the order in which they were completed:
applicationProgress: ["sectionG", "sectionZ", "sectionA"]
I’d like to be able to do something like:
GET /application-progress - expected: sectionG, sectionZ, sectionA
GET /application-progress?filter[first]=true - expected: sectionG
GET /application-progress?filter[current]=true - expected: sectionA
GET /application-progress?filter[previous]=sectionZ - expected: sectionG
I appreciated the above URLs are incorrect, but I’m not sure how to name/structure them to get the expected data e.g. Are the resources here "sectionids"?
I'd like to adhere to the JSON:API specification.
UPDATE
I'm looking to adhere to JSON:API v1.0
In terms of resources I believe I have "Section" and "ProgressEntry". Each ProgressEntry will have a one-to-one relationship with a Section.
I'd like to be able to query within the collection e.g.
Get the first item in the collection:
GET /progress-entries?filter[first]
Returns:
{
"data": {
"type": "progress-entries",
"id": "progressL",
"attributes": {
"sectionId": "sectionG"
},
"relationships": {
"section": {
"links": {
"related": "http://example.com/sections/sectionG"
}
}
}
},
"included": [
{
"links": {
"self": "http://example.com/sections/sectionG"
},
"type": "sections",
"id": "sectionG",
"attributes": {
"id": "sectionG",
"title": "Some title"
}
}
]
}
Get the previous ProgressEntry given a relative ProgressEntry. So in the following example find a ProgressEntry whose sectionId attribute equals "sectionZ" and then get the previous entry (sectionG). I wasn't clear before that the filtering of this is based on the ProgressEntry's attributes:
GET /progress-entries?filter[attributes][sectionId]=sectionZ&filterAction=getPreviousEntry
Returns:
{
"data": {
"type": "progress-entries",
"id": "progressL",
"attributes": {
"sectionId": "sectionG"
},
"relationships": {
"section": {
"links": {
"related": "http://example.com/sections/sectionG"
}
}
}
},
"included": [
{
"links": {
"self": "http://example.com/sections/sectionG"
},
"type": "sections",
"id": "sectionG",
"attributes": {
"id": "sectionG",
"title": "Some title"
}
}
]
}
I started to comment on jelhan's reply though my answer was just to long for a reasonable comment on his objection, hence I include it here as it more or less provides a good introduction into the answer anyways.
A resource is identified by a unique identifier (URI). A URI is in general independent from any representation format else content-type negotiation would be useless. json-api is a media-type that defines the structure and semantics of representations exchanged for a specific resource. A media-type SHOULD NOT force any constraints on the URI structure of a resource as it is independent from it. One can't deduce the media-type to use based on a given URI even if the URI contains something like vnd.api+json as this might just be a Web page talking about json:api. A client may as well request application/hal+json instead of application/vnd.api+json on the same URI and receive the same state information just packaged in a different representation syntax, if the server supports both representation formats.
Profiles, as mentioned by jelhan, are just extension mechanisms to the actual media-type that allow a general media-type to specialize through adding further constraints, conventions or extensions. Such profiles use URIs similar to XML namespaces, and those URIs NEED NOT but SHOULD BE de-referencable to allow access to further documentation. There is no talk about the URI of the actual resource other than given by Web Linking that URIs may hint a client on the media-type to use, which I would not recommend as this requires a client to have certain knowledge about that hint.
As mentioned in my initial comments, URIs shouldn't convey semantics as link relations are there for!
Link-relations
By that, your outlined resource seems to be a collection of some further resources, sections by your domain language. While pagination as defined in json:api does not directly map here perfectly, unless you have so many sections that you want to split these into multiple pages, the same concept can be used using standardized link relations defined by IANA.
Here, at one point a server may provide you a link to the collection resource which may look like this:
{
"links": {
"self": "https://api.acme.org/section-queue",
"collection": "https://api.acme.org/app-progression",
...
},
...
}
Due to the collection link relation standardized by IANA you know that this resource may hold a collection of entries which upon invoking may return a json:api representation such as:
{
"links": {
"self": "https://api.acme.org/app-progression",
"first": "https://api.acme.org/app-progression/sectionG",
"last": "https://api/acme.org/app-progression/sectionA",
"current": "https://api.acme.org/app-progression",
"up": "https://api.acme.org/section-queue",
"https://api/acme.org/rel/section": "https://api.acme.org/app-progression/sectionG",
"https://api/acme.org/rel/section": "https://api.acme.org/app-progression/sectionZ",
"https://api/acme.org/rel/section": "https://api.acme.org/app-progression/sectionA",
...
},
...
}
where you have further links to go up or down the hierarchy or select the first or last section that finished. Note the last 3 sample URIs that leverages the extension relation types mechanism defined by RFC 5988 (Web Linking).
On drilling down the hierarchy further you might find links such as
{
"links": {
"self": "https://api.acme.org/app-progression/sectionZ",
"first": "https://api.acme.org/app-progression/sectionG",
"prev": "https://api.acme.org/app-progression/sectionG",
"next": "https://api.acme.org/app-progression/sectionA",
"last": "https://api.acme.org/app-progression/sectionA",
"current": "https://api.acme.org/app-progression/sectionA",
"up": "https://api.acme.org/app-progression",
...
},
...
}
This example should just showcase how a server is providing you with all the options a client may need to progress through its task. It will simply follow the links it is interested in. Based on the link relation names provided a client can make informed choices on whether the provided link is of interest or not. If it i.e. knows that a resource is a collection it might to traverse through all the elements and processes them one by one (or by multiple threads concurrently).
This approach is quite common on the Internet and allows the server to easily change its URI scheme over time as clients will only act upon the link relation name and only invoke the URI without attempting to deduce any logic from it. This technique is also easily usable for other media-types such as application/hal+json or the like and allows each of the respective resources to be cached and reused by default, which might take away load from your server, depending on the amount of queries it has to deal with.
Note that no word on the actual content of that section was yet said. It might be a complex summary of things typical to sections or it might just be a word. We could classify it and give it a name, as such even a simple word is a valid target for a resource. Further, as Jim Webber mentioned, your resources you expose via HTTP (REST) and your domain model are not identical and usually do not map one-to-one.
Filtering
json:api allows to group parameters together semantically by defining a customized x-www-form-urlencoded parsing. If content-type negotiation is used to agree on json:api as representation format, the likelihood of interoperability issues is rather low, though if such a representation is sent unsolicitedly parsing of such query parameters might fail.
It is important to mention that in a REST architecture clients should only use links provided by the server and not generate one on their own. A client usually is not interested in the URI but in the content of the URI, hence the server needs to know how to act upon the URI.
The outlined suggestions can be used but also URIs of the form
.../application-progress?filter=first
.../application-progress?filter=current
.../application-progress?filter=previous&on=sectionZ
can be used instead. This approach should in addition to that also work on almost all clients without the need to change their url-encoded parsing mechanism. In addition to that he management overhead to return URIs for other media-types generated may be minimized as well. Note that each of the URIs in the example above represent their own resource and a cache will store responses to such resources based on the URI used to retrieve such results. Queries like .../application-progress?filter=next&on=sectionG and .../application-progress?filter=previous&on=sectionA which retrieve basically the same representations are two distinctive resources which will be processed two times by your API as the response of the first query can't be reused as the cache key (URI) is different. According to Fielding caching is one of the few constraints REST has which has to be respected otherwise you are violating it.
How you design such URIs is completely up to you here. The important thing is, how you teach a client when to invoke such URIs and when it should not. Here, again, link-relations can and should be used.
Summary
In summary, which approach you prefer is up to you as well as which URI style you choose. Clients, especially in a REST environment, do not care about the structure of the URI. They operate on link-relations and use the URI just for invoking it to progress on with their task. As such, a server API should help a client by teaching it what it needs to know like in a text-based computer game in the 70/80's as mentioned by Jim Webber. It is helpful to think of the interaction model to design as affordances and state machine as explained by Asbjørn Ulsberg .
While you could apply filtering on grouped parameters provided by json:api such links may only be usable within the `json:api´ representation. If you copy & paste such a link to a browser or to some other channel, it might not be processable by that client. Therefore this would not be my first choice, TBH. Whether or not you design sections to be their own resource or just properties you want to retrieve is your choice here as well. We don't know really what sections are in your domain model, IMO it sounds like a valid resource though that may or may not have further properties.
Currently, I'm working on new product and making REST API for both - public and internal needs. I started with {json:api} specification and I was pretty happy with it until I faced some questions I cannot find answers to.
According to JSON API specification, every resource MUST contain id.
http://jsonapi.org/format/
Every resource object MUST contain an id member and a type member. The values of the id and type members MUST be strings.
And that's fine in many cases but not all.
Most of our endpoints are about "resources"
If I ask for a "things" collection (http://example.com/things)
{
"data": [{
"type": "things",
"id": "1",
"attributes": {
"title": "first"
},
"links": {
"self": "http://example.com/things/1"
}
}, {
"type": "things",
"id": "1",
"attributes": {
"title": "second"
},
"links": {
"self": "http://example.com/things/2"
}
}]
}
If I ask for a single "things" resource (http://example.com/things/1)
{
"data": {
"type": "things",
"id": "1",
"attributes": {
"title": "first"
},
"links": {
"self": "http://example.com/things/1"
}
}
}
But what to do with endpoints which are not about resources and does not have ID?
For example, in our application, there is an endpoint http://example.com/stats which should return stats of current logged in user. Like
{
"active_things": 23,
"last_login": "2017"
}
There is no id for this "resource" (it's not actually a resource, is it?). Backend just collects some "stats" for logged in user and returns an object of stats. There many endpoints like this in this application, for example, we have Notification center page where the user can change email addresses for different notifications.
So frontend app (single-page-app) first has to get current values and it sends the request to GET http://example.com/notification-settings.
{
"notifications_about_new_thing": "arunas#example.com",
"notification_about_other_thing": "arunas#example.com"
}
And there are many more endpoints like this. The problem is - how to return these responses in JSONAPI format? There is no ID in these endpoints.
And the biggest question is - why nobody else is facing this issue (at least I cannot find any discussion about this)? :D All APIs I ever made has some endpoints which don't have "id".
I have two ideas, first is to fake id, like "id": "doesnt_matter", the second - do not use json-api for these endpoints. But I don't like both of them.
Think RESTfully and everything can (must) be a resource. There is no "logged in" user as there are no sessions in RESTful APIs as they are stateless. There's no session state maintained between REST API invocations, so you have to be explicit about who the user is.
In this case, the resource is the user who has some stats attributes (in the simple case) or perhaps a relationship to a separate stats relationship (more complicated, not shown):
GET /users/1234
{
"data": {
"type": "users",
"id": "1234",
"attributes": {
"name": "etc.",
"active_things": 23,
"last_login": "2017"
}
}
}
I'm no JSON API expert- but it's worth noting that while JSON API is a concrete specification, it is not the same thing as JSON, nor as a REST API. If you don't like its semantics, I agree with commenters who argue, "Don't use it." If you are going to use JSON API, do so in a compliant way, where every response is a resource; every resource has an ID and a type; and additional information is supplied as attributes of the resource.
Toward your question, I'm thinking about something similar where my application returns computation results. Now on the one hand, these are not strictly "resources" and so I've been toying with the idea of returning the raw result as an array (which I believe would be valid JSON, with a caveat), e.g:
[ 47 ]
On the other hand, there is the idea that the results are the results of a computation that the client specified RESTfully, in which case one of the following two cases is likely true:
The same request submitted later is likely to have the same result. This suggests that in fact the result really is a resource.
The same request submitted later is likely to have a different result. This suggests that the client may want to track how results change for various queries, and so at least the query parameters should be part of the response.
In both cases, the response really is a 'result' object, and even though it doesn't have an ID per se, it does have an identity. If nothing else fits, the ID could be the query that generated the response.
This seems RESTful to me. User #n2ygk suggests that this is not correct as regards the JSON API spec, that an ID should simply be a unique ID and not have another semantic interpretation.
I'd love to hear other perspectives.
The JWT RFC does not seem to have any problem containing complex arrays such as:
{
"email": "test#test.com",
"businesses": [
{
"businessId": "1",
"businessName": "One",
"roles": [
"admin",
"accountant"
]
},
{
"businessId": "2",
"businessName": "Two",
"roles": [
"support"
]
}
]
}
And this seems a desirable scenario for our needs, since as part of the token we'd like to have a list of businesses a user has access to and what roles does he have for each business (it's part of its identity). The authorization policies at the API would later understand those groups and apply the required authorization logic.
I have seen that with IdentityServer4 the claims are added to the ProfileDataRequestContext's IEnumerable<Claim> IssuedClaims property.
Is there any recommended alternative to this complex claim structure? If not, is there any way to build that structure with IdentityServer4 (maybe some extension?) or the only way would be to manually serialize the JSON since the Claim seems to accept only a string?
PS: I have seen this question and this other where one of the authors of Identity Server talks about something similar being an antipattern. Not sure if the antipattern would be to have complex claims' structure or "authorization implementation details" in the claims.
Any advice on this would be great!
UPDATE:
After giving some thoughts I agree having a complex hierarchy of claims is not desirable and I could go around this problem with a dirty solution of prefixing roles for each businessId. Something like this:
{
"email": "test#test.com",
"roles": [
"1_admin",
"1_accountant",
"2_support"
],
"businesses": [
"1_One",
"2_Two"
]
}
that way I keep a simple structure and later on, at the client or API I can read the claims and find out that 1 is the id for the business with name One and it has the roles admin and account.
Would this be a better solution?
Claims are about identity information - and not complex permission "objects". You are far better off with a dedicated permission service that returns your permissions in any format you want based on the identity of the user.
I also hope your permission data doesn't change while the token is being used, otherwise you end up with stale data.
That said - claims are always strings in .NET - but you can serialize JSON objects into it by setting the ClaimValueType to IdentityServerConstants.ClaimValueTypes.Json.
If I wanted to create (POST) a new resource linking two independent resources, what is the most proper - with respect to HATEOAS and REST principles - way to structure the entity of the request?
Any references in RFCs, W3C documents, Fielding's thesis, etc., about the proper way for a client to request two independent resources be linked together would be most valuable. Or, if what I'm interested in is simply outside the scope of REST, HATEOAS, an explanation of why would also be great.
Hopefully my question above is clear. If not, here's a scenario and some background to ground the question.
Let's say I have two independent resources: /customer and /item, and a third resource /order intended to the two.
If I'm representing these resource to the client in a HATEOAS-like way (say with JSON-LD), a customer might (minimally) look like:
{
"#id": "http://api.example.com/customer/1"
}
and similarly an item like:
{
"#id": "http://api.example.com/item/1"
}
I'm more concerned about what scheme the entity of the POST request should have, rather than the URL I'm addressing the request to. Assuming I'm addressing the request to /order, would POSTing the following run afoul of HATEOAS and REST principles in any way?
{
"customer": {"#id": "http://api.example.com/customer/1"},
"item": {"#id": "http://api.example.com/item/1"}
}
To me, this seems intuitively OK. However, I can't find much or any discussion of the right way to link two independent resources with a POST. I discovered the LINK and UNLINK HTTP methods, but these seem inappropriate for a public API.
The client does not build URIs, so this is wrong unless these resource identifiers or at least their template came from the service. It is okay to use the id numbers instead of the URIs until you describe this in the response which contains the POST link.
An example from the hydra documentation:
{
"#context": "http://www.w3.org/ns/hydra/context.jsonld",
"#id": "http://api.example.com/doc/#comments",
"#type": "Link",
"title": "Comments",
"description": "A link to comments with an operation to create a new comment.",
"supportedOperation": [
{
"#type": "CreateResourceOperation",
"title": "Creates a new comment",
"method": "POST",
"expects": "http://api.example.com/doc/#Comment",
"returns": "http://api.example.com/doc/#Comment",
"possibleStatus": [
... Statuses that should be expected and handled properly ...
]
}
]
}
The "http://api.example.com/doc/#Comment" contains the property descriptions.
{
"#context": "http://www.w3.org/ns/hydra/context.jsonld",
"#id": "http://api.example.com/doc/#Comment",
"#type": "Class",
"title": "The name of the class",
"description": "A short description of the class.",
"supportedProperty": [
... Properties known to be supported by the class ...
{
"#type": "SupportedProperty",
"property": "#property", // The property
"required": true, // Is the property required in a request to be valid?
"readable": false, // Can the client retrieve the property's value?
"writeable": true // Can the client change the property's value?
}
]
}
A supported property can have an rdfs:range, which describes the value constraints. This is not yet (2015.10.22.) added to the hydra vocab as far as I can tell, but I don't have time to follow the project. I think you still can use the rdfs:range instead of waiting for a hydra range.
So in your case you could add an item property with a range of http://api.example.com/doc/#Item and so on. I assume you could add the links of the alternatives, something like http://api.example.com/items/, so you could generate a select input box. Be aware that this technology is not stable yet.
So you can send a simple JSON as POST body {item: {id:1}, customer: {id:1}} or something like that, which you generate based on the POST link. The RDF is for the client not for the server. The server can understand the data structure it requires, it does not need RDF. You don't need a dictionary to understand yourself...