I am working on a Web API and I want to use Content Negotiation with file extensions to allow browser clients to specify the content they want to receive. For instance
http://localhost:54147/data.xslx.
According to this article (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/dn574797.aspx) I should be able to setup routing with something like this
//setup default routes
config.Routes.MapHttpRoute(
name: "Default",
routeTemplate: "{controller}/{id}",
defaults: new {id = RouteParameter.Optional}
);
//setup routes with extensions
config.Routes.MapHttpRoute(
name: "Url extension",
routeTemplate: "{controller}/{action}.{ext}/{id}",
defaults: new { id = RouteParameter.Optional }
);
Here is my simple controller
public class TestController : ApiController
{
public HttpResponseMessage Get()
{
var items = new[] {"test1", "test2", "test3"};
return Request.CreateResponse(HttpStatusCode.OK, items);
}
}
using this url
http://localhost:54147/test/get.xlsx
I always get the browser default (xml in chrome, json in IE11).
or possibly
http://localhost:54147/test.xlsx
to which I get the error
No HTTP resource was found that matches the request URI 'http://localhost:54147/test.xlsx'.
I should be able to use my custom formatter. But it's not happening. Here is the constructor of my custom formatter.
public ExcelFormatter()
{
MediaTypeMappings.Add(new UriPathExtensionMapping("xlsx", ContentType.Excel));
SupportedMediaTypes.Add(new MediaTypeHeaderValue(ContentType.Excel));
}
Again according to the article this should help the API Content Negotiator use my custom formatter. I appreciate any help.
As the question is old, but is still without an answer:
Generally this links should help:
How to build media formatter
Microsofts words about content negotiation
To the code in the question:
it seems you need to extend from BufferedMediaTypeFormatter(sync) or MediaTypeFormatter`(async)
you need to make your formatter known to HttpConfiguration.Formatters (link)
You probably want to do this in an config for the complete application.
For testing you could add in to a single ApiController like following.
untested example
public class TestController : ApiController
{
TestController() {
Configuration.Formatters.Add(new ExcelFormatter());
}
public HttpResponseMessage Get()
{
var items = new[] {"test1", "test2", "test3"};
return Request.CreateResponse(HttpStatusCode.OK, items);
}
}
```
Related
.net4.7 + WebApi5.23 + HelpPage5.23.
My WebApiConfig.Register:
public static class WebApiConfig
{
public static void Register(HttpConfiguration config)
{
...
config.MapHttpAttributeRoutes();
config.Routes.MapHttpRoute(
name: "DefaultApi",
routeTemplate: "{controller}/{action}/{id}", //note: there is no "api/" prefix
defaults: new { id = RouteParameter.Optional }
);
}
}
And the index page is worked:
But the api detail page fail(Page not found):
Please help, thank you.
Routing is bound to be getting confused between routing to your MVC controller or your WebApi controller since the are now sharing the same path.
If you need a web page to show, create a new method within the HelpController that returns a new view.
If you need Json returned, you can still create a new method within the HelpController to do that, just change the return type to JsonResult.
Hopefully this gives you enough to understand what's going wrong, and therefore what to google next.
I am trying to learn the new MVC 6. I never used the Microsoft MVC framework before.
I am trying to enhance an simple tutorial web API by adding links to different actions of my controllers using the URL (urlhelper) of the controller (Home controller showing what the API can do).
But when I use:
this.Url.Action("Get", new {id = id});
I get a query string with the URL. I'd like a more restful-style URL.
I thought when using the attributes routing, I do not have to map a specific route like I see in old tutorials of WebApi.
Do I have to map a route ?
What do I have to do to get a more restful URL style ?
You can add a name to the route attributes in your controller, then use the extension method IUrlHelper.RouteUrl to generate the url.
For example, given the following web api controller:
[Route("api/[controller]")]
public class UsersController : Controller
{
// GET: api/users
[HttpGet]
public IEnumerable<string> Get()
{
return new string[] { "value1", "value2" };
}
// GET api/users/5
[HttpGet("{id}", Name ="UsersGet")]
public string Get(int id)
{
return "value";
}
//additional methods...
}
You can generate the url api/users/123 for the specific get by id action using #Url.RouteUrl("UsersGet", new { id = 123 }).
The problem when using the Url.Action extension method is that if you have a controller like in the example above with 2 actions named "Get", this will use the route for the action without parameters and generate /api/Users?id=123. However if you comment that method, you will see that #Url.Action("Get", "Users", new { id = 123 }) also gives you the expected url.
I am getting repeat entries rendered in my Web API Help Page with different parents, such as these, that refer to the same method:
GET api/{apiVersion}/v1/Products - Gets all products
...
GET api/v1/Products - Gets all products
...
I have a Web API page with some routing like this:
config.Routes.MapHttpRoute (
name: "DefaultVersionApi",
routeTemplate: "api/{apiVersion}/{controller}/{id}",
defaults: new { id = RouteParameter.Optional }
);
config.Routes.MapHttpRoute (
name: "DefaultApi",
routeTemplate: "api/{controller}/{id}",
defaults: new { id = RouteParameter.Optional }
);
I had thought that this routing would make the "v1" optional, so the derived documentation above is not expected.
(sidebar: Going to api/products certainly doesn't work, so I am not sure what is wrong with this. What am I missing?)
It seems the real problem is that Web API Help Page is reading the routes improperly, as I thought v1 and {apiVersion} should not both appear in the same action. What am I missing here?
Try using Attribute Routing, install nuget package
Install-Package Microsoft.AspNet.WebApi.WebHost
Enable Attribute Routing in the WebApiConfig.cs
public static class WebApiConfig
{
public static void Register(HttpConfiguration config)
{
// Attribute routing.
config.MapHttpAttributeRoutes();
// Convention-based routing.
config.Routes.MapHttpRoute(
name: "DefaultApi",
routeTemplate: "api/{controller}/{id}",
defaults: new { id = RouteParameter.Optional }
);
}
}
Then use the attribute Route in the methods of your Controller
[Route("~/api/v1/Products")]
[HttpGet]
public List<Product> Products()
{}
[Route("~/api/v2/Products")]
[HttpGet]
public List<Product> V2Products()
{}
in the documentation you will get
GET api/v1/Products - Gets all products
GET api/v2/Products - Gets all products
It seems like this is a shortcoming of the ASP.NET Web API help pages. To workaround, I changed the view to exclude these invalid routes from the rendered document. For the above example, I added this Where clause to the loop in ApiGroup.cshtml, changing
#foreach (var api in Model){
to
#foreach (var api in Model.Where(m => !m.Route.RouteTemplate.Contains(#"{apiVersion}"))){
I have written a REST service using Web API and after reading sections of this Web API Design from Brian Mulloy, was trying to figure out how I could implement associations with Web API.
Web API Design Extract:
Associations
Resources almost always have relationships to other
resources. What's a simple way to express these relationships in
aWebAPI?
Let's look again at the API we modeled in nouns are good,
verbs are bad -theAPI that interacts with our dogs resource.
Remember, we had two base URLs: /dogs and dogs/1234.
We're using HTTP
verbs to operate on the resources and collections. Our dogs belong to
owners. To get all the dogs belonging to a specific owner, or to
create a new dog for that owner, do a GET or a POST:
GET /owners/5678/dogs
POST /owners/5678/dogs
Now, the relationships can be
complex. Owners have relationships with veterinarians, who have
relationships with dogs, who have relationships with food, and so on.
It's not uncommon to see people string these together making a URL 5
or 6 levels deep. Remember that once you have the primary key for one
level, you usually don't need to include the levels above because
you've already got your specific object. In other words, you shouldn't
need too many cases where a URL is deeper than what we have above
/resource/identifier/resource.
So I tried to add a controller method for the association like follows:
public class EventsController : ApiController
{
// GET api/events
public IEnumerable<Event> Get()
{
// get list code
}
// GET api/events/5
public Event Get(int id)
{
// get code
}
// POST api/events
public void Post([FromBody]Event evnt)
{
// add code
}
// POST api/events/5
public void Post(int id, [FromBody]Event evnt)
{
// update code
}
// DELETE api/events/5
public void Delete(int id)
{
// delete code
}
// GET api/events/5/guests
public IEnumerable<Guest> Guests(int id)
{
// association code
}
}
I also modified my route templates to the following:
config.Routes.MapHttpRoute("ApiWithAssociations",
"api/{controller}/{id}/{action}");
config.Routes.MapHttpRoute("DefaultApi",
"api/{controller}/{id}",
new { id = RouteParameter.Optional });
Unfortunately, when I do an update/post of the event resource I now get a HTTP 500 Internal Server Error with a response body stating
Multiple actions were found that match the request
I've tried modifying the route templates in conjunction with adding System.Web.Http.HttpPostAttribute (and other HTTP verbs) as well but to no avail.
Has anyone tried this and got it working? Any help would be appreciated. If it is absolutely not possible to have multiples for an http verb then I guess I'll have to abandon associations with my REST service.
EDIT: SOLUTION
Using Radim Köhler's answer, I was able to get this working. Add the HttpGetAttribute to the Guests method like so:
// GET api/event/5/guests
[HttpGet]
public IEnumerable<Guest> Guests(int id)
{
// association code
}
And added an addition route to cater for the default GET action like follows:
config.Routes.MapHttpRoute("DefaultGet",
"api/{controller}/{id}",
new {action = "Get"},
new {httpMethod = new HttpMethodConstraint(HttpMethod.Get)});
config.Routes.MapHttpRoute("ApiWithAssociations",
"api/{controller}/{id}/{action}");
config.Routes.MapHttpRoute("DefaultApi",
"api/{controller}/{id}",
new {id = RouteParameter.Optional});
The solution, could be in an explicit POST mapping
Just add new definition, which will be used for events/5 POST
// explicit Post() mapping
config.Routes.MapHttpRoute(
name: "DefaultPost",
routeTemplate: "api/{controller}/{id}",
defaults: new { action = "Post" }
, constraints: new { httpMethod = new HttpMethodConstraint(HttpMethod.Post) }
);
// existing
config.Routes.MapHttpRoute("ApiWithAssociations",
"api/{controller}/{id}/{action}");
config.Routes.MapHttpRoute("DefaultApi",
"api/{controller}/{id}",
new { id = RouteParameter.Optional });
I have WebApi controllers that end with the "Api" suffix in their names (For ex: StudentsApiController, InstructorsApiController). I do this to easily differentiate my MVC controllers from WebApi controllers. I want my WebApi routes to look similar to
http://localhost:50009/api/students/5 and not http://localhost:50009/api/studentsapi/5.
Currently to achieve this, I am setting up routes like
routes.MapHttpRoute(
name: "GetStudents",
routeTemplate: "api/students/{id}",
defaults: new { controller = "StudentsApi", id = RouteParameter.Optional });
routes.MapHttpRoute(
name: "GetInstructors",
routeTemplate: "api/instructors/{id}",
defaults: new { controller = "InstructorsApi", id = RouteParameter.Optional });
This is turning out to be very cumbersome as I have to add a route for each method in my controllers. I am hoping there should be an easy way to setup route templates that automatically adds the "api" suffix the controller name while processing routes.
Following #Youssef Moussaoui's direction I ended up writing the following code that solved the problem.
public class ApiControllerSelector : DefaultHttpControllerSelector
{
public ApiControllerSelector(HttpConfiguration configuration)
: base(configuration)
{
}
public override string GetControllerName(HttpRequestMessage request)
{
if (request == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("request");
IHttpRouteData routeData = request.GetRouteData();
if (routeData == null)
return null;
// Look up controller in route data
object controllerName;
routeData.Values.TryGetValue("controller", out controllerName);
if (controllerName != null)
controllerName += "api";
return (string)controllerName;
}
}
And register it in Global.asax as
GlobalConfiguration.Configuration.Services.Replace(typeof(IHttpControllerSelector),
new ApiControllerSelector(GlobalConfiguration.Configuration));
Now that ASP.NET Web API 2 is out, there is a much less cumbersome way to do more complex routing like that you suggested, by using attribute routing.
At the top of your controller just add the following attribute:
[RoutePrefix("api/students")]
public class StudentsApiController : ApiController
{
...
}
And then before each API method:
[Route("{id}"]
public HttpResponseMessage Get(int id)
{
...
}
There is a bit of setup required, but the positives of doing routing this way are many. For one, you can put the routing with the controllers and methods that do the actual work, so you're never searching around wondering if you have the right route. Secondly and more importantly, it's much easier to do more complex routing, like having the controller name different from the route name (like you want) or having very complex patterns to match against.
I think the extensibility point you're looking for is the controller selector. You can create a class that derives from DefaultHttpControllerSelector and overrides the GetControllerName to strip out the "api" part. You can then register this controller selector on your service's configuration Services.
Following Youssef's comment on muruug's answer would look something like this
public class ApiControllerSelector : DefaultHttpControllerSelector
{
public ApiControllerSelector (HttpConfiguration configuration) : base(configuration) { }
public override string GetControllerName(HttpRequestMessage request)
{
return base.GetControllerName(request) + "api";
}
}