I have defined a route like this:
GET /login controllers.Login.showForm(continue: Option[String] = None)
Login.showForm is this:
def showForm(continue: Option[String] = None) = Action { implicit request =>
val nextPage = continue match {
case None => routes.CtrlIndex.index().absoluteURL().toString()
case Some(page) => page
}
Ok(views.html.login(nextPage))
}
Now, using action composition I made an authenticated action that performs this when the user is not authenticated:
val continue =
if (request.method == "GET") request.uri
else routes.CtrlIndex.index().absoluteURL().toString() // This is not code duplication for reasons that are out of the scope of this question.
Redirect(routes.Login.showForm(Some(continue)))
This fails to compile with this message:
too many arguments for method showForm: ()play.api.mvc.Call
[error] Redirect(routes.Login.showForm(Some(continue)))
Changing the route definition makes it work:
GET /login controllers.Login.showForm(continue: Option[String])
But then when I use the javascript reverse router, it generates the following error in the generated javascript:
SyntaxError: missing formal parameter
function(continue) {
---------^
I have tried all combination of the definition of the function signatures but when the javascript works, the other stops working or the other way around. How can I use
Optional parameter on /login
Use the reverse javascript router
Redirect to /login with the "continue" parameter
I would also like to change request.uri for something that returns an absolute path.
Thanks in advance
PS. If you see something in Spanish, let me know and I'll fix it, the code is originally in Spanish; I may have missed something even after I read it.
The likely cause is that "continue" is a reserved word in javascript
Play's javascript reverse router constructs a given route using the controller path and method argument(s) specified in the routes file; in your case, "continue" may be tripping up the js parser, much like a method named "delete", which works fine server-side but will blow up in the client-side reverse router.
This may be a non-issue for newer browsers, but have been bitten by "delete" method name on older versions of Internet Explorer (that we are required to support).
Related
I am trying to make some conditional routes. The condition resolves on the serverside.
Route rule example:
| (dynamicRouteCT("#user" / long.caseClass[User]) ~> dynRender((page: User) => <.div("Hello, " + page.id.toString)))
.addCondition((page: User) => checkPermissions(page.id))(_ => Some(redirectToPage(Page403)(Redirect.Push)))
checkpermissions body:
def checkPermissions(id: Long) = CallbackTo.future{
/*Ajax.get(s"http://some.uri/?id=$id") map (res =>
* if (something) true
* else false
* )
*/
//the request before returns Future[XMLHttprequest] witch maps to Future[Boolean]
Future(false)
}
I got type missmatch here: (page: User) => checkPermissions(page.id)
Is it possible to perform ajax request inside conditional routes?
If we look at def addCondition(cond: Page => CallbackTo[Boolean])(condUnmet: Page => Option[Action[Page]]): Rule[Page] we can see that it requires a CallbackTo[Boolean]. Because of the nature of the JS env, there is now way to go from Future[A] to A. Although it's not a limitation from scalajs-react itself, it is an inherited reality that will affect your scalajs-react code; as this table in the doc shows, there's no way to go from a CallbackTo[Future[Boolean]] to a CallbackTo[Boolean].
This type-level restriction is actually a really good thing for user experience. The router is synchronous, it must determine how to render routes and route changes immediately. If it were allowed to be async and somehow supported Futures, then the user would experience noticable (and potentially huge) delays without any kind of visual feedback or means of interruption.
The "right way" to solve this problem is to use a model that covers the async state. This is what I would do:
Create an AsyncState[E, A] ADT with cases: Empty, AwaitingResponse, Loaded(value: A), Failed(error: E).(You can enrich these further if desired, eg. loadTime on Loaded, retry callback on Failed, timeStarted on AwaitingResponse, etc.)
Have an instance of AsyncState[Boolean] in your (local/client-side) state.
Optionally kick-off an async load on page startup.
Have the router pass its value to a component and/or check the value of this.(The router won't know the value because it's dynamic, use Callback in a for-comprehension to wire things up and satisfy the types.)
Depending on the value of AsyncState[Boolean], render something meaningful to the user. If it's AwaitingResponse, display a little spinner; if it's failed display an error and probably a retry button.
(It should also be noted that AsyncState[Boolean] shouldn't actually be Boolean as that's not very descriptive or true to the domain. It would probably be something more meaningful like AsyncState[UserAccess] or something like that.)
Hope that helps! Good luck!
I'm trying to set up a url that allows optional query params. e.g.
myurl?number=1
I'm getting a compile error when I try to pass a value to my controller from inside of a template.
e.g.
Where the routes.conf is configured as follows:
GET /myurl/ controllers.Application.myurl(number: Option[Int])
The specific error is:
Type mismatch. Expected Nothing, actual: Option[Int]
It works a OK if I hit the URLs directly in the browser. However, if I try to supply the query param in the template, it fails.
The above I got from this question, which is why I set up my route using option.
GET /foo controllers.MyController.foo(name: Option[String], age: Option[Int])
And...
def foo(name: Option[String], age: Option[Int]) = Action { implicit request =>
Ok(s"Name is: $name, age is $age")
How do I pass a query param to the controller?
I you have read Reverse Routing in Play framework then it would be easy for you to understand this.
When you are trying to use optional query parameter then, you define your end point as
GET /myurl/ controllers.Application.myurl(number: Option[Int])
and you can use it from your template as
The code will be compiled but your IDE may show you an error ignore the error by IDE and just move on from there.
So, whenever you are calling your action from template using reverse routing then you can use the above calling method and it will be treated by play as /myrul?number=1 and if you paste this url in your browser then your myurl action will be called and number parameter will be treated as option to it.
Like, i am using in one of my application as follows:
My EndPoint
GET /file/:id #controllers.FileController.getFile(id:String,w:Option[Int],h:Option[Int])
My Template
<img src="#controllers.routes.FileController.getFile(company.logoPath,Some(150),None)" />
End point seen on terminal
GET /file/1ecf481b-9fb3-4d9d-93f5-16b10a6cefa3?w=150 took 134ms and returned 200
Does that make it clear?
Say I have the following url:
/baseurl
I'd like play to match and route on this url. I'd like to satisfy all these patterns:
/baseurl
/baseurl/
/baseurl/*
/baseurl/*/*
So basically I don't care what comes after '/baseurl'. I don't want to explicitly have to pass a variable to my action for the part coming in after '/baseurl' because I don't care about it: I just want it all routed to the same controller (for a single page app). I also am ok if I have to do this with multiple route lines.
I'd put something like this pretty high in the routes file:
GET /baseurl/*path/ controllers.Application.untrail(path: String)
(and the variations thereof)
And then in controllers.Application:
def untrail(path: String) = Action {
MovedPermanently("/baseurl")
}
My web application will be triggered from an external system. It will call one request path of my app, but uses different query parameters for different kinds of requests.
One of the parameters is the "action" that defines what is to be done. The rest of the params depend on the "action".
So I can get request params like these:
action=sayHello&user=Joe
action=newUser&name=Joe&address=xxx
action=resetPassword
...
I would like to be able to encode it similarly in the routes file for play so it does the query param based routing and as much of the validation of other parameters as possible.
What I have instead is one routing for all of these possibilities with plenty of optional parameters. The action processing it starts with a big pattern match to do dispatch and parameter validation.
Googling and checking SO just popped up plenty of samples where the params are encoded in the request path somehow, so multiple paths are routed to the same action, but I would like the opposite: one path routed to different actions.
One of my colleagues said we could have one "dispatcher" action that would just redirect based on the "action" parameter. It would be a bit more structured then the current solution, but it would not eliminate the long list of optional parameters which should be selectively passed to the next action, so I hope one knows an even better solution :-)
BTW the external system that calls my app is developed by another company and I have no influence on this design, so it's not an option to change the way how my app is triggered.
The single dispatcher action is probably the way to go, and you don't need to specify all of your optional parameters in the route. If action is always there then that's the only one you really need.
GET /someRoute controller.dispatcher(action: String)
Then in your action method you can access request.queryString to get any of the other optional parameters.
Note: I am NOT experienced Scala developer, so maybe presented snippets can be optimized... What's important for you they are valid and working.
So...
You don't need to declare every optional param in the routes file. It is great shortcut for type param's validation and best choice would be convince 'other company' to use API prepared by you... Anyway if you haven't such possibility you can also handle their requests as required.
In general: the dispatcher approach seems to be right in this place, fortunately you don't need to declare all optional params in the routes and pass it between actions/methods as they can be fetched directly from request. In PHP it can be compared to $_GET['action'] and in Java version of Play 2 controller - DynamicForm class - form().bindFromRequest.get("action").
Let's say that you have a route:
GET /dispatcher controllers.Application.dispatcher
In that case your dispatcher action (and additional methods) can look like:
def dispatcher = Action { implicit request =>
request.queryString.get("action").flatMap(_.headOption).getOrElse("invalid") match {
case "sayHello" => sayHelloMethod
case "newUser" => newUserMethod
case _ => BadRequest("Action not allowed!")
}
}
// http://localhost:9000/dispatcher?action=sayHello&name=John
def sayHelloMethod(implicit request: RequestHeader) = {
val name = request.queryString.get("name").flatMap(_.headOption).getOrElse("")
Ok("Hello " + name )
}
// http://localhost:9000/dispatcher?action=newUser&name=John+Doe&address=john#doe.com
def newUserMethod(implicit request: RequestHeader) = {
val name = request.queryString.get("name").flatMap(_.headOption).getOrElse("")
val address = request.queryString.get("address").flatMap(_.headOption).getOrElse("")
Ok("We are creating new user " + name + " with address " + address)
}
Of course you will need to validate incoming types and values 'manually', especially when actions will be operating on the DataBase, anyway biggest part of your problem you have resolved now.
Must be a syntax issue on my part, but can't quite pin it:
In my controller I have this defined:
request.format match {
case "json" => Json(output)
case "xml" => toXml(parse(output.toString))
case _ => BadRequest
}
And in my routes I have this defined:
# Map the API to the proper domain
GET /{key}/{action}/{param}.{format} API.{action}
POST /{key}/{action}/{param}.{format} API.{action}
I posted something like: /34523452345/job/today.json
So when I go to actually run the request, it takes {param} and includes the period. So the result for {param} is today.js and the {format} becomes on
The catch if I switch the period to a forward slash / it works just fine
What is the cause of the problem?
I believe you have to escape the dot as in \., as Play uses regexp in the routes files.