What should be done if an invalid uri is provided when calling a REST Web API (asp.net mvc)? I'm getting
HTTP Error 404.4 - Not Found
The resource you are looking for does not have a handler associated with it.
When I provide an invalid controller, I get the following:
No HTTP resource was found that matches the request URI
'http://localhost:51929/api/usera'.
No type was found that matches the controller named 'usera'.
I thought 1) was the default and ok, but I've been asked to return a custom html page for both of the above and some others errors but it doesn't feel right to return a web page when dealing with an Web API?
1) Is this common practise?
2) Is there a best practice/standard?
Is there a best practice/standard?
One of the important points in HTTP is that the meta data of the response gives general purpose components the hints to support a coarse understanding of what is going on.
One significant piece of meta data is the response code, which communicates when the response body contains a representation of a resource, and when instead it contains a representation of "an explanation of the error situation".
Does it have to be a "web page"? No, of course not. Instead it could be text/plain, or application/problem+json, or any other representation that you would expect a general purpose client to be able to interpret.
The design of the message should be motivated by its use case, which is to say it is a document intended to be read by a human being trying to figure out what has gone wrong (we don't expect general purpose components to understand how to automatically fix a bad URL; instead, we describe the problem for a person, who will sort it out).
Related
I have a REST endpoint GET /api/rules. It takes several query parameters for filtering/querying, like type, name, owner, description, and tag. So you could end up with a URI like this:
GET /api/rules?name=rule1,rule2&owner=john,jane&description=VeryLongDescription
Specifically, I'm concerned that the description queried for could be very long and make the URI too long (I forget the limit). Should I create a POST version of this same endpoint for users that get a 414 URI Too Long response from the server?
I mean, generally speaking, when does it make sense to just make a POST that gets a resource? Anytime you introduce query params?
In theory URIs have no limits, but in practice they might be limited by implementations. If you have to circumvent limitations imposed by the implementation that are not inherent to the protocol, you should try to decouple them from your application.
If you're a purist, the more or less standard way of supporting functionality through the POST method is using the x-http-method-override header, which can be decoupled from your application if it's implemented as a request pre-processor. You can have the preprocessor convert the POST request to the GET request your application expects, converting the payload to a query string.
Here's an example of this approach in the Google Translate API: https://cloud.google.com/translate/v2/using_rest#Translate
If you're not a purist, or if that's too complicated for your users, or you don't want to use a custom header, I think it's fine to make a POST endpoint that gets a resource, as long as it's properly documented and the resource being queried is identified by the URI.
Right now I have a REST service which creates a report via a POST:
POST http://myhost/reports
The report however is not persisted, and cannot later on be retrieved via a GET:
GET http://myhost/reports/{id}
Instead I return the report immediately in the response to the POST. Am I violating any REST principle here, e.g. anything a POST creates should always be accessible via a GET, or is this setup OK?
The POST method isn't a synonym to the create in CRUD. The POST method is used for any operation that isn't standardized, so as long as you document what it does, you're not violating REST, no matter what you do.
There's no such REST principle saying "anything a POST creates should always be accessible via a GET". This is a common misunderstanding due to conflating REST with CRUD. Read this answer for some clarification on that.
In informal language, what a POST says to the server is "take this data and apply it to the resource identified by the given URI, following the rules you documented for the resource media type."
No, you are not violating REST. As long as your interface is uniform it is up to you to determine what actions the urls of your API perform.
As part of your documentation you simply need to state which methods are valid for certain resources and which aren't. I really like to use the Twitter API as a good example of "What to do"
Example: Twitter REST API
POST statuses/update
does not create an object available for access at
GET statuses/update/3
The action performed by the POST method might not result in a resource
that can be identified by a URI. In this case, either 200 (OK) or 204
(No Content) is the appropriate response status, depending on whether
or not the response includes an entity that describes the result.
So according to the HTTP standard this is okay.
I've been looking at examples of REST API's like Netflix http://developer.netflix.com/docs/REST_API_Reference#0_59705 and Twitter and they seem to place error messages in the statusText header response instead of the responseText. We're developing an internal RESTful api and I am arguing for sending custom statusText messages and ignoring the responseText.
For the scope of our app, we're returning error 400 when the user has tried doing something they aren't supposed to, and the only error messages that will be updated in the UI for the user will be delivered with 400. I am of the belief that the message should be sent as a modified statusText but one of the engineers (who knows a bit less about REST than me) is arguing for sending it in the responseText.
What's the best way to go?
HTTP defines that you should put a descriptive error message in the response entity body, aka responseText.
statusText is not rendered or processed by any client.
I'd use the status text for the error message type, aka 400 Client Error, and the body for a description of the problem that can be rendered to the user, in whatever the format the client may be able to process.
Edit: Note that since then, a new standardised format exists to communicate in a standard fashion error details back to the client, which you can find at https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7807 and which I would recommend.
I think you're right, the general approach is use the existing error mechanism built into HTTP.
In general, try to map your errors to existing HTTP errors, for example if they request something they don't have permission to, return a 403 error.
If they request something that doesn't exist, return a 404.
Alex
According to the HTTP specification (rfc2616): "HTTP status codes are extensible"
However I don't think that creating new statuses for every different error message is the correct approach:
I would say choose HTTP Status appropriately (HTTP Status Code Definitions) if you can't find any category which matches your requirement create a custom one (but I'm sure you will) and put error messages in the HTTP response body.
Picking appropriate status code for your responses is extremely important as it is a key enabler of self-descriptive messages.
The entity body should be a representation of the resource's state and ideally contain hyperlinks to available next states in your application
Http Status Codes are pretty self explanatory and should be used as such. Returning 200 OK with validation errors is pretty Soap-y and misleading. Any REST Client implementation 4xx and 5xx errors go into a error block and it really depends on case to case basis if you really want to use the response body for non 2xx responses.
I'm designing an API to go over HTTP and I am wondering if using the HTTP POST command, but with URL query parameters only and no request body, is a good way to go.
Considerations:
"Good Web design" requires non-idempotent actions to be sent via POST. This is a non-idempotent action.
It is easier to develop and debug this app when the request parameters are present in the URL.
The API is not intended for widespread use.
It seems like making a POST request with no body will take a bit more work, e.g. a Content-Length: 0 header must be explicitly added.
It also seems to me that a POST with no body is a bit counter to most developer's and HTTP frameworks' expectations.
Are there any more pitfalls or advantages to sending parameters on a POST request via the URL query rather than the request body?
Edit: The reason this is under consideration is that the operations are not idempotent and have side effects other than retrieval. See the HTTP spec:
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.
...
Methods can also have the property of
"idempotence" in that (aside from
error or expiration issues) the
side-effects of N > 0 identical
requests is the same as for a single
request. The methods GET, HEAD, PUT
and DELETE share this property. Also,
the methods OPTIONS and TRACE SHOULD
NOT have side effects, and so are
inherently idempotent.
If your action is not idempotent, then you MUST use POST. If you don't, you're just asking for trouble down the line. GET, PUT and DELETE methods are required to be idempotent. Imagine what would happen in your application if the client was pre-fetching every possible GET request for your service – if this would cause side effects visible to the client, then something's wrong.
I agree that sending a POST with a query string but without a body seems odd, but I think it can be appropriate in some situations.
Think of the query part of a URL as a command to the resource to limit the scope of the current request. Typically, query strings are used to sort or filter a GET request (like ?page=1&sort=title) but I suppose it makes sense on a POST to also limit the scope (perhaps like ?action=delete&id=5).
Everyone is right: stick with POST for non-idempotent requests.
What about using both an URI query string and request content? Well it's valid HTTP (see note 1), so why not?!
It is also perfectly logical: URLs, including their query string part, are for locating resources. Whereas HTTP method verbs (POST - and its optional request content) are for specifying actions, or what to do with resources. Those should be orthogonal concerns. (But, they are not beautifully orthogonal concerns for the special case of ContentType=application/x-www-form-urlencoded, see note 2 below.)
Note 1: HTTP specification (1.1) does not state that query parameters and content are mutually exclusive for a HTTP server that accepts POST or PUT requests. So any server is free to accept both. I.e. if you write the server there's nothing to stop you choosing to accept both (except maybe an inflexible framework). Generally, the server can interpret query strings according to whatever rules it wants. It can even interpret them with conditional logic that refers to other headers like Content-Type too, which leads to Note 2:
Note 2: if a web browser is the primary way people are accessing your web application, and application/x-www-form-urlencoded is the Content-Type they are posting, then you should follow the rules for that Content-Type. And the rules for application/x-www-form-urlencoded are much more specific (and frankly, unusual): in this case you must interpret the URI as a set of parameters, and not a resource location. [This is the same point of usefulness Powerlord raised; that it may be hard to use web forms to POST content to your server. Just explained a little differently.]
Note 3: what are query strings originally for? RFC 3986 defines HTTP query strings as an URI part that works as a non-hierarchical way of locating a resource.
In case readers asking this question wish to ask what is good RESTful architecture: the RESTful architecture pattern doesn't require URI schemes to work a specific way. RESTful architecture concerns itself with other properties of the system, like cacheability of resources, the design of the resources themselves (their behavior, capabilities, and representations), and whether idempotence is satisfied. Or in other words, achieving a design which is highly compatible with HTTP protocol and its set of HTTP method verbs. :-) (In other words, RESTful architecture is not very presciptive with how the resources are located.)
Final note: sometimes query parameters get used for yet other things, which are neither locating resources nor encoding content. Ever seen a query parameter like 'PUT=true' or 'POST=true'? These are workarounds for browsers that don't allow you to use PUT and POST methods. While such parameters are seen as part of the URL query string (on the wire), I argue that they are not part of the URL's query in spirit.
You want reasons? Here's one:
A web form can't be used to send a request to a page that uses a mix of GET and POST. If you set the form's method to GET, all the parameters are in the query string. If you set the form's method to POST, all the parameters are in the request body.
Source: HTML 4.01 standard, section 17.13 Form Submission
From a programmatic standpoint, for the client it's packaging up parameters and appending them onto the url and conducting a POST vs. a GET. On the server-side, it's evaluating inbound parameters from the querystring instead of the posted bytes. Basically, it's a wash.
Where there could be advantages/disadvantages might be in how specific client platforms work with POST and GET routines in their networking stack, as well as how the web server deals with those requests. Depending on your implementation, one approach may be more efficient than the other. Knowing that would guide your decision here.
Nonetheless, from a programmer's perspective, I prefer allowing either a POST with all parameters in the body, or a GET with all params on the url, and explicitly ignoring url parameters with any POST request. It avoids confusion.
I would think it could still be quite RESTful to have query arguments that identify the resource on the URL while keeping the content payload confined to the POST body. This would seem to separate the considerations of "What am I sending?" versus "Who am I sending it to?".
The REST camp have some guiding principles that we can use to standardize the way we use HTTP verbs. This is helpful when building RESTful API's as you are doing.
In a nutshell:
GET should be Read Only i.e. have no effect on server state.
POST is used to create a resource on the server.
PUT is used to update or create a resource.
DELETE is used to delete a resource.
In other words, if your API action changes the server state, REST advises us to use POST/PUT/DELETE, but not GET.
User agents usually understand that doing multiple POSTs is bad and will warn against it, because the intent of POST is to alter server state (eg. pay for goods at checkout), and you probably don't want to do that twice!
Compare to a GET which you can do as often as you like (idempotent).
I find it perfectly acceptable to use query parameters on a POST end-point if they refer to an already-existing resource that must be updated through the POST end-point (not created).
For example:
POST /user_settings?user_id=4
{
"use_safe_mode": 1
}
The POST above has a query parameter referring to an existing resource, mirroring the GET end-point definition to get the same resource.
The body parameter defines how to update the existing resource.
Edited:
I prefer this to having the path of the end-point to point directly to the already-existing recourse, like some suggest to do, like so:
POST /user_settings/4
{
...
}
The reason is three-fold:
I find it has better readability, since the query parameters are named, like "user_id" in the above, in stead of just "4".
Usually, there is also a GET endpoint to get the same resource. In that case the path of the end-point and the query parameters will be the same and I like that symmetry.
I find the nesting can become cumbersome and difficult to read in case multiple parameters are needed to define the already-existing resource:
POST /user_settings/{user_id}/{which_settings_id}/{xyz}/{abc}/ ...
{
...
}
We are trying to implement a REST API for an application we have now. We want to expose read/write capabilities for various resources using the REST API. How do we implement the "form" part of this? I get how to expose "read" of our data by creating RESTful URLs that essentially function as method calls and return the data:
GET /restapi/myobject?param=object-id-maybe
...and an XML document representing some data structure is returned. Fine.
But, normally, in a web application, an "edit" would involve two requests: one to load the current version of the resources and populate the form with that data, and one to post the modified data back.
But I don't get how you would do the same thing with HTTP methods that REST is sort of mapped to. It's a PUT, right? Can someone explain this?
(Additional consideration: The UI would be primarily done with AJAX)
--
Update: That definitely helps. But, I am still a bit confused about the server side? Obviously, I am not simply dealing with files here. On the server, the code that answers the requests should be filtering the request method to determine what to do with it? Is that the "switch" between reads and writes?
There are many different alternatives you can use. A good solution is provided at the microformats wiki and has also been referenced by the RESTful JSON crew. As close as you can get to a standard, really.
Operate on a Record
GET /people/1
return the first record
DELETE /people/1
destroy the first record
POST /people/1?_method=DELETE
alias for DELETE, to compensate for browser limitations
GET /people/1/edit
return a form to edit the first record
PUT /people/1
submit fields for updating the first record
POST /people/1?_method=PUT
alias for PUT, to compensate for browser limitations
I think you need to separate data services from web UI. When providing data services, a RESTful system is entirely appropriate, including the use of verbs that browsers can't support (like PUT and DELETE).
When describing a UI, I think most people confuse "RESTful" with "nice, predictable URLs". I wouldn't be all that worried about a purely RESTful URL syntax when you're describing web UI.
If you're submitting the data via plain HTML, you're restricted to doing a POST based form. The URI that the POST request is sent to should not be the URI for the resource being modified. You should either POST to a collection resource that ADDs a newly created resource each time (with the URI for the new resource in the Location header and a 202 status code) or POST to an updater resource that updates a resource with a supplied URI in the request's content (or custom header).
If you're using an XmlHttpRequest object, you can set the method to PUT and submit the data to the resource's URI. This can also work with empty forms if the server supplies a valid URI for the yet-nonexistent resource. The first PUT would create the resource (returning 202). Subsequent PUTs will either do nothing if it's the same data or modify the existing resource (in either case a 200 is returned unless an error occurs).
The load should just be a normal GET request, and the saving of new data should be a POST to the URL which currently has the data...
For example, load the current data from http://www.example.com/record/matt-s-example and then, change the data, and POST back to the same URL with the new data.
A PUT request could be used when creating a new record (i.e. PUT the data at a URL which doesn't currently exist), but in practice just POSTing is probably a better approach to get started with.