For exmaple: We have a REST API which provides data for multiple consumers. The most case is like: Frontend (accessable for everyone), admin/management (for admins only), mobile app.
These ones differs in the response data which the REST API delivers. For example, in the admin request, the API should respond the email of the user. In the frontend not. Or the mobile app, shouldnt receive unnecessary data, which are not displayed in the views.
My idea was to set adapters in front of the REST API, but this won't work, if you don't have multiple domains available (e.g. api.xyz.com, api-manage.xyz.com).
I think this is a common way, which most of the app needs. I don't want to build multiple APIs to cover this case.
Is there any way on the application side, for example with middleware? Or I know there is a role based approach, but I dont think, this is enought abstract, because the role doesnt decide which device it is.
There is a little solution:
Role based decision which fields the user can be retrieve. Additionally the consumer has to put a header, or a queryparam like "frontend", "admin", "mobile", to identify which data will be returned. This is independent of the "which the user is able". It's just for optimization.
Are there any other solutions?
Your API should not know about your clients but it should offer the possibility for the clients to do what they want/need. Let's say you need to display a list of product with details. On the desktop you might bring 100 products but in mobile only 10. So the api need to provide a configurable paging. Also in the desktop you might get more information than on mobile. So here if you have an entity product, in the desktop you will get all the fields( multiple attributes for example) but for the mobile you get only the name and one attribute (for example the price) to minimize the payload size.
So the API need to be generic but give clients possibility to use it based on their needs.
Related
The problem to face lies in the design of a RESTful API that can manage requests from multiple roles in an RBAC-based solution.
Currently we have different resources that can be accessed from different users, which can have one or more roles grouped according to their privileges.
The API we're trying to define must be as clear as possible to the client but without the overhead of adding additional metadata to the URL that could damage and even conflict with the REST practices and definitions. Therefore, we must avoid at all costs include information about the roles inside the URL. The plan is to use JWT tokens that carry in their payloads the info needed to know which permissions has the user making the request.
Having raised our current situation, let's provide an example and state the problem to solve:
Suppose we have * financiers * and * providers * as users with some roles who both want to access ** attentions ** (our resource). Should we add before the resource ** attentions ** information about the * user * whose trying to access the resource?
The endpoints in that case should be defined (as an example) as:
https://example.com/api/v1/financiers/:id/attentions
https://example.com/api/v1/providers/:id/attentions
This way we're attempting to inform the respective controllers that we want the ** attentions ** for that specific role / user which are, in some way, a sub-resource of them.
On the other hand, we could simply implement a much simpler endpoint as follows:
https://example.com/api/v1/attentions
The logic about which attentions return from the database should be now implemented in an unique method that must handle this two roles (and potentially new ones that could come up in the following features). All the information needed must be obtained from the payload from the token, exposing a much more generic API and freeing the web client from the responsibility of which endpoint call depending on the role.
I want to highlight that the attentions are managed in a Microservices Architecture and, hence, the logic to retrieve them is gathered in a single service. The cost of the API Gateway to route the two (and potentially more) of the endpoints from the first solution is a variable not to discard in our specific situation.
Having exposed our current situation:
Which we'll be the best approach to handle this issue?
Is there another alternative not contemplated that could ease the role management and provide a clean API to expose to the client?
In the second solution, is correct to return only the attentions accessible to that specific user based on the roles that it has? Isn't it counterintuitive to access an endpoint and only get some of the resources from that collection (and not all) based on its role?
I hope that someone could clarify the approach we're taking as there are little and none literature that I've found regarding this issue.
There there are multiple solutions for such kind of filtration, and developer have to select one depending on given situation.
As per my experience I can list following.
Structure
When data can't be accessed directly and developer has to use a relation (i.e a table JOIN). In that case URL have to include both the main and sub entities. Before going with this approach a good check is to ask, if the same URL can be used with POST ?
Example
If we have to fetch list of roles assigned to a specific user or want to assign additional roles then we can use
GET users/:uid/roles
POST users/:uid/roles
Security
With Multi-tenant systems where each user can have his/her private resources, i.e other users are prohibited from accessing those resources. Developer should save tenancy information and to filter the resources according to current authentication, without bothering client or requiring any additional info in URL
Example
Phone album of the user
GET photos
POST photos
Search
If it is not security or structure related but client still want to filter the result set depending on his scenario. then developer should use query-string for the filtration.
Example
Client have to fetch messages from his/her inbox or outbox or want messages which are not yet read. or he/she want to search his/her inbox
GET messages?folder=inbox
GET messages?folder=inbox&status=unread
GET messages?search=nasir
I'm trying to figure out best or common practices for API design.
My concern is basically this:
PUT /users/:id
In my view this endpoint could by used for a wide array of functions.
I would use it to change the user name or profile, but what about ex, resetting a password?
From a "model" point of view, that could be flag, a property of the user, so it would "work" to send a modification.
But I would expect more something like
POST /users/:id/reset_password
But that means that almost for each modification I could create a different endpoint according to the meaning of the modification, i.e
POST /users/:id/enable
POST /users/:id/birthday
...
or even
GET /user/:id/birthday
compared to simply
GET /users/:id
So basically I don't understand when to stop using a single POST/GET and creating instead different endpoints.
It looks to me as a simple matter of choice, I just want to know if there is some standard way of doing this or some guideline. After reading and looking at example I'm still not really sure.
Disclaimer: In a lot of cases, people ask about REST when what they really want is an HTTP compliant RPC design with pretty URLs. In what follows, I'm answering about REST.
In my view this endpoint could by used for a wide array of functions. I would use it to change the user name or profile, but what about ex, resetting a password?
Sure, why not?
I don't understand when to stop using a single POST/GET and creating instead different endpoints.
A really good starting point is Jim Webber's talk Domain Driven Design for RESTful systems.
First key idea - your resources are not your domain model entities. Your REST API is really a facade in front of your domain model, which supports the illusion that you are just a website.
So your resources are analogous to documents that represent information. The URI identifies the document.
Second key idea - that URI is used by clients to cache representations of the resource, so that we don't need to send requests back to the server all the time. Instead, we have built into HTTP a bunch of standard ways for communicating caching meta data from the server to the client.
Critical to that is the rule for cache invalidation: a successful unsafe request invalidates previously cached representations of the same resource (ie, the same URI).
So the general rule is, if the client is going to do something that will modify a resource they have already cached, then we want the modification request to go to that same URI.
Your REST API is a facade to make your domain model look like a web site. So if we think about how we might build a web site to do the same thing, it can give us insights to how we arrange our resources.
So to borrow your example, we might have a web page representation of the user. If we were going to allow the client to modify that page, then we might think through a bunch of use cases (enable, change birthday, change name, reset password). For each of these supported cases, we would have a link to a task-specific form. Each of those forms would have fields allowing the client to describe the change, and a url in the form action to decide where the form gets submitted.
Since what the client is trying to achieve is to modify the profile page itself, we would have each of those forms submit back to the profile page URI, so that the client would know to invalidate the previously cached representations if the request were successful.
So your resource identifiers might look like:
/users/:id
/users/:id/forms/enable
/users/:id/forms/changeName
/users/:id/forms/changeBirthday
/users/:id/forms/resetPassword
Where each of the forms submits its information to /users/:id.
That does mean, in your implementation, you are probably going to end up with a lot of different requests routed to the same handler, and so you may need to disambiguate them there.
We have simple e-commerce website where we have several products. Currently, each product has "Place order" button.
When user clicks on this button, we show user a form to fill Name, Mobile number and address. We don't support any monetary transaction. Once user fills this form, the order is saved to database. The order table has OrderId, ProductId, UserName, UserMobile.
We are designing API to save the user order. Should we have association b/w product and order while designing this?
For example URI to save the user order should be like:
POST /api/products/1/lead/ - The request body has user information i.e. name,mobile,address. OR
POST /api/lead/ - The request body has "PRODUCT ID" and user information i.e. name,mobile,address.
I am confused whether productId should be in request URI or in the request body? How do we make such decision?
Given that
you're first navigating to a product, before actually placing the order
the product id has nothing in common with the UserInformation model that you're posting
I'd go with the first option: POST /api/products/1/lead/
I would always go with a more shallow route for representing resources, just for the sake of simplicity. No, a nested route isn't complicated or anything, but I've seen nesting go really far. So I would keep it as shallow as possible unless...
1) You plan on having more than one thing that can have a lead. For example, you can have a lead on a product:
api/products/1/lead
or a lead on a managed service that you all provide or something (I'm reaching right now):
api/managed_services/2/lead
You could pass that info in the body always, but I imagine it would become a little cumbersome to base what resource to create based on what properties were defined in the json.
2) You plan on breaking out that route and having it go to a different service eventually. Maybe this app will have to scale substantially and a ton of users will be hitting this route moreso than any other endpoint in the system. It's a lot easier to redirect all requests to a different microservice based on the url starting with api/products than it would be redirect based on the request body.
But honestly, I don't think it matters too much. As long as it's easy for your clients to consume.
For example: We have a User model, which in turn has several Company entities. I see 2 solutions:
1) Classical. Make an API like:
/users/
/users/3/
/users/3/companies/
and issue /users or companies request separately. However, if we need to have both user and his/her companies information in one view (on Angular2) - we need to send 2 requests to the server.
2) Put the related/nested data inside the level-1 object model. In request:
/users/3/
the server will provide information about the User, together with his Companies. In this case we get all information for 1 request. But again, the company has an unlimited number of Storage entities. What if they are required in one separate view?
I'm more inclined to the first option, but I'm confused by the description of the REST style: "The view must fully represent the resource." Satisfaction of this requirement can lead to a partition of the resource into child resources and, accordingly, to smaller representations. "
Please, help with advice, I doubt in connection with the lack of experience what decision will be correct in this case. Oh yes, I forgot, Backend on Django (Python) using Django-Rest-Framework - All this is a SaaS for ~ 1000 users.
Approach 1 is an an ideal approach for REST. But when it comes to designing APIs for the displaying information on the UI it involves much more than just partitioning the APIs as per resources.
So I would suggest including the Company information in the User API. But as you suggested Company object can have very large list of Storage objects, in this case I would recommend including only the necessary and sufficient fields of Company model into User API. So that you will be able to render one view. And then later when user expands the Company section then you can pull the left-over fields from /company/<id> API.
This way you will have lesser API calls for the hits where user doesn't look for Company details and your API will be light weight as well.
So I have a dilema here. Trying to build out a RESTful API. Which means I'd like to have resources defined and also require that consumers reference those resources by id.
For example, the typical {resourceName}/{id}?{querystring}
But the way of course a web UI works, for a ecommerce site is that naturally you have SEO-friendly urls.
So there is a mismatch in terms of application specific URLs where we have application context based urls, context here being an ecommerce site using SEO-friendly URLs. They wouldn't have stuff like /id in it 100% of the time. And actually our site doesn't have any ids whatsoever in the web UI's urls.
So when users go from page to page, we might have urls like www.ourdomain.com/cars/local/usa/ca/sunnyvale-cars. And sometimes we're talking about stripping the '-' or other characters out of the more seo friendly urls, after the UI devs send a request to lets say like above a state resource. I'd strip the city name out of 'sunnyvale-cars' if lets say I wanted info on that city so the UI team might send me '/cities?name=sunnyvale-cars' where our API would need to strip out the city name in order to do the query in the backend which to me just doesn't sound like something our API should be doing. It's also coupling our REST API to the web and web conventions...our REST API should be ignorant of any type of delivery mechanism so that our API can be reused for other apps or other APIs in our Business domain.
There might be times where the UI Engineering team, in fact a lot of times they'll only have URLs like this. There is no user action or lets say dropdown list where they can just grab an id. So they can't always request stuff for the next page by sending me a RESTful URI request every time as they may not have ids all the time. In other words, sometimes they'll have to instead request stuff like this: /states?name="ca" to get something related to that state just as a hypothetical example.
So how in the world do you even build a REST API if your UI team is telling you they won't have ids for everything?
From a REST purist's point of view no URI is inherently more RESTful than another as long as both use identify the resources. At least, I could not find anything about that in the original thesis.
However, if you find some structure fitting the purposes of your API better, you can create a second endpoint exclusively for the needs of your UI team. That endpoint would serve as a proxy and simply map the SEO-friendly structure to your API in possibly generic way.
Or, applications from the outside are just expected to do the rewriting or any app specific mapping-to-REST API "stuff" since it's really app specific in what that mapping looks like anyway, thus keeping the API ignorant of application specific details, domain logic, or even web conventions which the API should not care about or even know about.