I do not know how I can solve the following doubt, I have a GET request from my API and of course, I would like to save the parameters obtained in the application and not have to make every time I browse each activity a new GET request, as it would overload the server by the over-requests requested. What is the correct way to keep this temporary data while using the app?
My idea is that as soon as the application loads, an Activity SPLASH is shown and this same SPLASH, performs the API request and from here the data is kept. How should the implementation be done?
I'm in the process of writing a testing framework for an application, and I am not allowed to update, delete, move, or basically do anything with the data used by this application. For GET requests I need to test this is no problem, but PUT, POST and DELETE methods that change data this obviously is not the case.
Is there any way to send a POST request without any body, and still get a response that shows the url can take a request? Or in other words, how can I show that a url that is a POST is up and able to take requests, without actually sending the POST request and changing something in the database? (unfortunately its not possible to add a test object to database and run requests on that).
I need to do this programmatically in either Java or C# as well.
There is no general way to 'test' if a POST request will work.
Most servers will likely emit a 400 error for these endpoints, which doesn't tell you a lot.
The most standard way to see if something is able to accept a POST request at all, is probably by doing an OPTIONS request and using the Allow header in the response to get the list of supported methods.
There is no guarantee that this is going to be correct, but many modern frameworks do a decent job populating this list. This is likely going to give you the most accurate, but still imperfect results.
You should not send an empty POST request anywhere because it could have a meaning and you could make unexpected changes to a server. For this kind of introspection stuff, stick to the 'safe' methods.
I'm writing a locust.io based performance test scenarios. As part of the User journey I had to navigate to a url (which will end with a session/{guid} before getting a cookie for a session, which I can continue to apply within the cookie headers to carry on with other parts of the journey.
Now I want to avoid reporting on the initial url which ends in session/{guid}, as otherwise I'll be hitting different endpoints as the {guid} will keep changing for every single request, as that is a redirect URL that I get from a system.
So, is there a setting that I can use to stop locust.io from reporting on that specific request?
Hope the above question is clear enough in what I want to achieve.
Okay, actually, I avoided l.client.post and for that URL request alone I used the python requests api's post method, so locust can't track it :)
Background:
I have a single page application that pulls data from a REST API. The API is designed such that the only URL necessary is the API root, ie https://example.com/api which provides URLs for other resources so that the client doesn't need to have any knowledge of how they are constructed.
API Design
The API has three main classes of data:
Module: Top level container
Category: A sub-container in a specific module
Resource: An item in a category
SPA Design
The app consuming the API has views for listing modules, viewing a particular module's details, and viewing a particular resource. The way the app works is it keeps all loaded data in a store. This store is persistent until the page is closed/refreshed.
The Problem:
My question is, if the user has navigated to a resource's detail view (example.com/resources/1/) and then they refresh the page, how do I load that particular resource without knowing its URL for the API?
Potential Solutions:
Hardcode URLs
Hardcoding the URLs would be fairly straightforward since I control both the API and the client, but I would really prefer to stick to a self describing API where the client doesn't need to know about the URLs.
Recursive Fetch
I could fetch the data recursively. For example, if the user requests a Resource with a particular ID, I could perform the following steps.
Fetch all the modules.
For each module, fetch its categories
Find the category that contains the requested resource and fetch the requested resource's details.
My concern with this is that I would be making a lot of unnecessary requests. If we have 100 modules but the user is only ever going to view 1 of them, we still make 100 requests to get the categories in each module.
Descriptive URLs
If I nested URLs like example.com/modules/123/categories/456/resources/789/, then I could do 3 simple lookups since I could avoid searching through the received data. The issue with this approach is that the URLs quickly become unwieldy, especially if I also wanted to include a slug for each resource. However, since this approach allows me to avoid hardcoding URLs and avoid making unnecessary network requests, it is currently my preferred option.
Notes:
I control both the client application and the API, so I can make changes in either place.
I am open to redesigning the API if necessary
Any ideas for how to address this issue would by greatly appreciated.
Expanding on my comment in an answer.
I think this is a very common problem and one I've struggled with myself. I don't think Nicholas Shanks's answer truly solves this.
This section in particular I take some issues with:
The user reloading example.com/resources/1/ is simply re-affirming the current application state, and the client does not need to do any API traversal to get back here.
Your client application should know the current URL, but that URL is saved on the client machine (in RAM, or disk cache, or a history file, etc.)
The implication I take from this, is that urls on your application are only valid for the life-time of the history file or disk cache, and cannot be shared with other users.
If that is good enough for your use-case, then this is probably the simplest, but I feel that there's a lot of cases where this is not true. The most obvious one indeed being the ability to share urls from the frontend-application.
To solve this, I would sum the issue up as:
You need to be able to statelessly map a url from a frontend to an API
The simplest, but incorrect way might simply be to map a API url such as:
http://api.example.org/resources/1
Directly to url such as:
http://frontend.example.org/resources/1
The issue I have with this, is that there's an implication that /resource/1 is taken from the frontend url and just added on to the api url. This is not something we're supposed to do, because it means we can't really evolve this api. If the server decides to link to a different server for example, the urls break.
Another option is that you generate uris such as:
http://frontend.example.org/http://api.example.org/resources/1
http://frontend.example.org/?uri=http://api.example.org/resources/1
I personally don't think this is too crazy. It does mean that the frontend needs to be able to load that uri and figure out what 'view' to load for the backend uri.
A third possibility is that you add another api that can:
Generate short strings that the frontend can use as unique ids (http://frontend.example.org/[short-string])
This api would return some document to the frontend that informs what view to load and what the (last known) API uri was.
None of these ideas sound super great to me. I want a better solution to this problem, but these are things I came up with as I was contemplating this.
Super curious if there's better ideas out there!
The current URL that the user is viewing, and the steps it took to get to the current place, are both application state (in the HATEOAS sense).
The user reloading example.com/resources/1/ is simply re-affirming the current application state, and the client does not need to do any API traversal to get back here.
Your client application should know the current URL, but that URL is saved on the client machine (in RAM, or disk cache, or a history file, etc.)
The starting point of the API is (well, can be) compiled-in to your client. Commpiled-in URLs are what couple the client to the server, not URLs that the user has visited during use of the client, including the current URL.
Your question, "For example, if the user requests a Resource with a particular ID", indicates that you have not grasped the decoupling that HATEOAS provides.
The user NEVER asks for a resource with such-and-such an ID. The user can click a link to get a query form, and then the server provides a form that generates requests to /collection/{id}. (In HTML, this is only possible for query strings, not path components, but other hypermedia formats don't have this limitation).
When the user submits the form with the ID number in the field, the client can build the request URL from the data supplied by the server+user.
What's the difference when using GET or POST method? Which one is more secure? What are (dis)advantages of each of them?
(similar question)
It's not a matter of security. The HTTP protocol defines GET-type requests as being idempotent, while POSTs may have side effects. In plain English, that means that GET is used for viewing something, without changing it, while POST is used for changing something. For example, a search page should use GET, while a form that changes your password should use POST.
Also, note that PHP confuses the concepts a bit. A POST request gets input from the query string and through the request body. A GET request just gets input from the query string. So a POST request is a superset of a GET request; you can use $_GET in a POST request, and it may even make sense to have parameters with the same name in $_POST and $_GET that mean different things.
For example, let's say you have a form for editing an article. The article-id may be in the query string (and, so, available through $_GET['id']), but let's say that you want to change the article-id. The new id may then be present in the request body ($_POST['id']). OK, perhaps that's not the best example, but I hope it illustrates the difference between the two.
When the user enters information in a form and clicks Submit , there are two ways the information can be sent from the browser to the server: in the URL, or within the body of the HTTP request.
The GET method, which was used in the example earlier, appends name/value pairs to the URL. Unfortunately, the length of a URL is limited, so this method only works if there are only a few parameters. The URL could be truncated if the form uses a large number of parameters, or if the parameters contain large amounts of data. Also, parameters passed on the URL are visible in the address field of the browser not the best place for a password to be displayed.
The alternative to the GET method is the POST method. This method packages the name/value pairs inside the body of the HTTP request, which makes for a cleaner URL and imposes no size limitations on the forms output. It is also more secure.
The best answer was the first one.
You are using:
GET when you want to retrieve data (GET DATA).
POST when you want to send data (POST DATA).
There are two common "security" implications to using GET. Since data appears in the URL string its possible someone looking over your shoulder at Address Bar/URL may be able to view something they should not be privy to such as a session cookie that could potentially be used to hijack your session. Keep in mind everyone has camera phones.
The other security implication of GET has to do with GET variables being logged to most web servers access log as part of the requesting URL. Depending on the situation, regulatory climate and general sensitivity of the data this can potentially raise concerns.
Some clients/firewalls/IDS systems may frown upon GET requests containing an excessive amount of data and may therefore provide unreliable results.
POST supports advanced functionality such as support for multi-part binary input used for file uploads to web servers.
POST requires a content-length header which may increase the complexity of an application specific client implementation as the size of data submitted must be known in advance preventing a client request from being formed in an exclusively single-pass incremental mode. Perhaps a minor issue for those choosing to abuse HTTP by using it as an RPC (Remote Procedure Call) transport.
Others have already done a good job in covering the semantic differences and the "when" part of this question.
I use GET when I'm retrieving information from a URL and POST when I'm sending information to a URL.
You should use POST if there is a lot of data, or sort-of sensitive information (really sensitive stuff needs a secure connection as well).
Use GET if you want people to be able to bookmark your page, because all the data is included with the bookmark.
Just be careful of people hitting REFRESH with the GET method, because the data will be sent again every time without warning the user (POST sometimes warns the user about resending data).
This W3C document explains the use of HTTP GET and POST.
I think it is an authoritative source.
The summary is (section 1.3 of the document):
Use GET if the interaction is more like a question (i.e., it is a safe operation such as a query, read operation, or lookup).
Use POST if:
The interaction is more like an order, or
The interaction changes the state of the resource in a way that the
user would perceive (e.g., a subscription to a service), or
The user be held accountable for the results of the interaction.
Get and Post methods have nothing to do with the server technology you are using, it works the same in php, asp.net or ruby. GET and POST are part of HTTP protocol.
As mark noted, POST is more secure. POST forms are also not cached by the browser.
POST is also used to transfer large quantities of data.
The reason for using POST when making changes to data:
A web accelerator like Google Web Accelerator will click all (GET) links on a page and cache them. This is very bad if the links make changes to things.
A browser caches GET requests so even if the user clicks the link it may not send a request to the server to execute the change.
To protect your site/application against CSRF you must use POST. To completely secure your app you must then also generate a unique identifier on the server and send that along in the request.
Also, don't put sensitive information in the query string (only option with GET) because it shows up in the address bar, bookmarks and server logs.
Hopefully this explains why people say POST is 'secure'. If you are transmitting sensitive data you must use SSL.
GET and POST are HTTP methods which can achieve similar goals
GET is basically for just getting (retrieving) data, A GET should not have a body, so aside from cookies, the only place to pass info is in the URL and URLs are limited in length , GET is less secure compared to POST because data sent is part of the URL
Never use GET when sending passwords, credit card or other sensitive information!, Data is visible to everyone in the URL, Can be cached data .
GET is harmless when we are reloading or calling back button, it will be book marked, parameters remain in browser history, only ASCII characters allowed.
POST may involve anything, like storing or updating data, or ordering a product, or sending e-mail. POST method has a body.
POST method is secured for passing sensitive and confidential information to server it will not visible in query parameters in URL and parameters are not saved in browser history. There are no restrictions on data length. When we are reloading the browser should alert the user that the data are about to be re-submitted. POST method cannot be bookmarked
All or perhaps most of the answers in this question and in other questions on SO relating to GET and POST are misguided. They are technically correct and they explain the standards correctly, but in practice it's completely different. Let me explain:
GET is considered to be idempotent, but it doesn't have to be. You can pass parameters in a GET to a server script that makes permanent changes to data. Conversely, POST is considered not idempotent, but you can POST to a script that makes no changes to the server. So this is a false dichotomy and irrelevant in practice.
Further, it is a mistake to say that GET cannot harm anything if reloaded - of course it can if the script it calls and the parameters it passes are making a permanent change (like deleting data for example). And so can POST!
Now, we know that POST is (by far) more secure because it doesn't expose the parameters being passed, and it is not cached. Plus you can pass more data with POST and it also gives you a clean, non-confusing URL. And it does everything that GET can do. So it is simply better. At least in production.
So in practice, when should you use GET vs. POST? I use GET during development so I can see and tweak the parameters I am passing. I use it to quickly try different values (to test conditions for example) or even different parameters. I can do that without having to build a form and having to modify it if I need a different set of parameters. I simply edit the URL in my browser as needed.
Once development is done, or at least stable, I switch everything to POST.
If you can think of any technical reason that this is incorrect, I would be very happy to learn.
GET method is use to send the less sensitive data whereas POST method is use to send the sensitive data.
Using the POST method you can send large amount of data compared to GET method.
Data sent by GET method is visible in browser header bar whereas data send by POST method is invisible.
Use GET method if you want to retrieve the resources from URL. You could always see the last page if you hit the back button of your browser, and it could be bookmarked, so it is not as secure as POST method.
Use POST method if you want to 'submit' something to the URL. For example you want to create a google account and you may need to fill in all the detailed information, then you hit 'submit' button (POST method is called here), once you submit successfully, and try to hit back button of your browser, you will get error or a new blank form, instead of last page with filled form.
I find this list pretty helpful
GET
GET requests can be cached
GET requests remain in the browser history
GET requests can be bookmarked
GET requests should (almost) never be used when dealing with sensitive data
GET requests have length restrictions
GET requests should be used only to retrieve data
POST
POST requests are not cached
POST requests do not remain in the browser history
POST requests cannot be bookmarked
POST requests have no restrictions on data length
The GET method:
It is used only for sending 256 character date
When using this method, the information can be seen on the browser
It is the default method used by forms
It is not so secured.
The POST method:
It is used for sending unlimited data.
With this method, the information cannot be seen on the browser
You can explicitly mention the POST method
It is more secured than the GET method
It provides more advanced features