How to model a progress "resource" in a REST api? - rest

Question

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"
}
}
]
}

Answer 1

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.