I'd like for a user to enter a search string (for example, "Narnia") and get a list of calendar events where "Narnia" is present in the summary, description, location, or attendee list.
Adding multiple prop-filters seems to return only components that match ALL of the filters (in this example, only events that have "Narnia" in ALL of the properties). Is there a way to specify a query for components matching ANY of the filters?
It is not possible to specify such a filter with the current CalDAV spec.
What you are asking for is described in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-daboo-caldav-extensions which is currently expired. I doubt that many servers have implemented this feature so want your client to check for its presence:
Servers advertise support for this extension by including the token
"calendar-query-extended" in the DAV response header to an OPTIONS
request on any resource supporting the extended query report.
Clients MUST check for the presence of that token before using the
"test" or "match-type" XML attributes.
Related
Link to the HATEOAS This is the link to the Hateoas article (snapshot below) where the identifiers of the resource is part of the URL i.e. 12345. Here the API response has the final API relative URL i.e. /accounts/12345/deposit and the client just needs to hit it.
Link to the Github Users API This is the link to the Github API (snapshot below) where there are lots of placeholders for identifiers. How will clients modify these URLSs and add a value in these placeholders? For example, {/gist_id}, {/other_user}.
Isn't passing the URL with id value instead of placeholder better? Why and when to rely on different clients to add values in these placeholders?
Hypertext as the engine of application state (HATEOAS) is a bit more than just the usage of links. In essence it enforces the interaction model that is used on the Web for two decades quite successfully. On the web a server usually "teaches" clients (browsers) to achieve something via the help of link relations, that can be used to automatically download related resources or give a hint on the reference resource, and Web forms, that define the syntax and semantics of each of the respective supported (input) elements, i.e. a text field, an option element to select one or multiple choices, a drop down or even a slider widget. Based on the affordance of each of the elements a client knows i.e. that a button wants to be clicked or pressed while a text fields wants some user input and stuff or a link annotated with the prefetch link relation name may be downloaded automatically once the current page finished loading as a client might invoke it next or a preload link relation might instruct a user agent to load the referenced resource early in the current page loading process.
The form not only teaches a client about the supported fields a resource has but also about the target URI to send the request to, the HTTP method to use wile sending the request as well as the media-type, which in the case of Web forms is usually implicitly set to application/x-www-form-urlencoded.
In an ideal world a client just uses the information given by the server. Unfortunately, the world isn't perfect and over time people have come up with plenty of other solutions. Among one of them is URI templating that basically allows clients to use a basic URI and fill out certain placeholders with concrete values. As making use of templating requires some knowledge of the URIs intention or the parameters you need to pass, such capabilities make only sense as part of media-type support.
Plain JSON (application/json) has by default no support for URIs whatsoever and as such a user agent receiving a plain JSON payload might not be able to automatically replace a template URI with a concrete one out of the box. JSON Hyper-Schema (application/schema+json) attempts to add link and URI template support to plain JSON payloads. A user client though needs to be hinted with the appropriate media-type in order to automatically resolve the full URI. As such, the user agent also has to support that respective media type otherwise it won't be able to process the document (resolve the template URI to a real URI) successfully.
JSON Hypertext Application Language a.k.a HAL JSON also supports URI templates for links. application/collection+json does support two kinds of templates - query templates and objects-template. The primer one is similar to a URI template by allowing to append certain query parameters to the target URI upon sending the request while the latter one allows to define a whole object that contains all the input elements used to add or edit an item within the collection. JSON-LD does not really support URI templating AFAIK though it uses the concept of a so called context where certain terms can be used to abbreviate URIs. As such something like name can be used within the context for a URI like http://schema.org/name.
As you can hopefully see, the support for URI templating depends on the media-type used for exchanging data. In the case of the outlined github example GET /users/:username this more or less resembles a typical Web API documentation, similar as it is done in a Swagger API documentation, that unfortunately has hardly anything to do with HATEOAS.
For your top example (banking), you should absolutely include the complete URL, with account numbers (IDs), so that the client does not need to translate/substitute anything. This is the most common scenario with HATEOAS. However, GitHub does have those "placeholders" for endpoints that could contain multiple values. You can't include the "following_url" for every user in the response, it's not practical. So you have to determine the "other_user" value another way and make the substitution. Personally, I haven't even had this use case with any of my applications and all of my HATEOAS URLs resemble you first example (though I prefer full URLs not relative). Unless you have specific cases like GitHub does, it's not necessary to use any of these placeholders. Even GitHub only uses that where they could be multiple values. For fixed value URLs, they have the username (like your account number) in the URL ("octocat").
According to me we should not give the direct url in the body
We should always parameterized the api and get details form there.
In simple case if Id of data change than every time data need to update for detail url.
Else if it’s dynamic you will never face this issue.
And this also come under best practices.
Is there any way to check if a view exists in the site based on its share URL ?
(Tableau Server Version 10.3, Tableau Server REST API version 2.6)
Input: (share URL of a view)
http://my-tableau-server/views/my-workbook-name/my-view-name?:embed=y&:showAppBanner=false&:showShareOptions=true&:display_count=no&:showVizHome=no
Output:
Boolean flag indicating whether the view represented by this share URL exists in a site or not.
I found one option to Query Views for Site where filtering on views is applicable only on the following fields and not on the contentUrl field:
name
createdAt
hitsTotal
ownerName
tags
updatedAt
I do not want to get all the views of a site and filter in my dot net code. Please suggest if there is any other option available.
Thanks!
From my understanding of the Tableau API, there are only two endpoints that allow all views of Sites or a Workbook. Both endpoints don't let you search for a specific view.
The only ways to accomplish what you are trying to do is to filter via the .Net code.
If you go to business manager of facebook, then go to the "All Audiences", then under the "Audiences" tab, you will see a "Filters" button right beside the "Create Audience" button. Now my question is, which part the json data being provided by the facebook apis should I based the data that I should pull out based from these filters ?
- Recently Used
- In Active Adverts
- Action Needed
- Shared
Because unlike the "ready" and "not ready" status, those four filters that I mentioned are not straight forward where I can just look for the numbers from the returned json data. so how ?
Most likely, not all of this information is available through the API.
However, if you take a look at the following doc, you can see some reelvant fields that may help:
https://developers.facebook.com/docs/marketing-api/reference/custom-audience
Most likely you can use the field operation_status to look at whether an audience needs action.
For whether it's shared, take a look ad the edge adaccounts which will let you see the ad accounts this audience has been shared with.
For recently used, you'll probably have to look at the edge ads and review the status of the ads.
To save having to make multiple requests, you can take a look at field expansion in the Graph API, which will let you query for fields of objects in results using a single request:
https://developers.facebook.com/docs/graph-api/using-graph-api#fieldexpansion
So the application is for a warehouse and you need to retrieve all of the products in the warehouse created by a particular client. What would a URI that is RESTful look like to accomodate this?
Here are some ideas that I had:
/Product/Client/[the client's ID]
/Product?clientID=[the client's ID]
What would a RESTful URI for this scenario look like?
From my point of understanding, first one is better options. In first scenario, you will only check the route from the URI and client id will be in the body param. In the second scenario, you are adding clientsID in the header. Although I am not a master but what saw the way people write, they follow the first option. You might get an idea from here: http://www.restapitutorial.com/lessons/restfulresourcenaming.html
Wait for the response from master in that area. thanks
You're identifying a specific client, so start with
/Client/[Client ID]
and then specify a resource "belonging to" that client
/Client/[Client ID]/Products
It all depends on the use case for this requirement.
If the client would usually navigate to a client, and then needs to view its products, then as #esorf said:
/client/{clientId}/products
However, if the client is displaying products for various clients (albeit only one at a time), something like this might make more sense:
/products?clientId={clientId}
This latter one could also be extended to use URI Templates in order display products of more than one client like so:
/products{?clientId*}
which expands into
/products?clientId={clientId1}&clientId={clientId2}
Assume I want to create a very simple todolist RESTful API, where each user owns a list of todos. The user is already authenticated over http BASIC or DIGEST.
At this point I am not sure what the URL scheme should look like.
Would it be:
http://servername/todos/
where my server filters the appropriate todos according to the authentification given to me by the http header.
Or should I include the username in the URI instead:
http://servername/users/username/todos/
On some websites I have even seen that they hand over the user name as a parameter like this:
http://servername/todos?username=babsi
As far as I can tell all three choices are stateless as I always receive the username, but just over different sources. From what I can tell to make sure that the URI is accessed by the proper user I always need to check the http header anyways. So which of the ways would you consider the best URI design in REST or should I do in a different way entirely?
You can use the following:
http://servername/todos/ GET list all todos
http://servername/users/ GET list all users
http://servername/users/{user_id}/ GET list an user
http://servername/users/{user_id}/todos/ GET list all todos for an user
I think the point here is how you want to design the relationships between your resources, if a todo just can exist in the context of an user use a hierarchy like approach as above.
As general rule i usually follow this:
Use path variables to encode hierarchy: /parent/child
Put punctuation characters in path variables to avoid implying hierarchy where
none exists: /parent/child1;child2
Use query variables to imply inputs into an algorithm, for
example: /search?q=jellyfish&start=20
Having the username in the URL depends on what you want to do (if anything at all) when you receive a request where the username in the URL does not match the authentication. If you want to re-authorize the user in this situation then yes - it's OK to have the username in the URL, otherwise it's OK to have it just in your header or other authentication scheme if there is no such need.
One fairly common example of a valid requirement would be if you have to have a main user (or group of such users) that can impersonate other users.
When the user in question is always the user who is holding the authentication token, then use something like "me" in your path.
http://example.com/users/me/<path-to-inner-resource>
Otherwise, user should be treated just like any other resource in your system, in which case the resource identifier for that user becomes a part of the path.
http://example.com/users/<id>/<path-to-inner-resource>
Take a look at Twitter APIs as an example.
https://developer.twitter.com/en/docs/twitter-api/users/follows/quick-start/follows-lookup