I am writing a RESTful service for a customer management system and I am trying to find the best practice for updating records partially. For example, I want the caller to be able to read the full record with a GET request. But for updating it only certain operations on the record are allowed, like change the status from ENABLED to DISABLED. (I have more complex scenarios than this)
I don't want the caller to submit the entire record with just the updated field for security reasons (it also feels like overkill).
Is there a recommended way of constructing the URIs? When reading the REST books RPC style calls seem to be frowned upon.
If the following call returns the full customer record for the customer with the id 123
GET /customer/123
<customer>
{lots of attributes}
<status>ENABLED</status>
{even more attributes}
</customer>
how should I update the status?
POST /customer/123/status
<status>DISABLED</status>
POST /customer/123/changeStatus
DISABLED
...
Update: To augment the question. How does one incorporate 'business logic calls' into a REST api? Is there an agreed way of doing this? Not all of the methods are CRUD by nature. Some are more complex, like 'sendEmailToCustomer(123)', 'mergeCustomers(123, 456)', 'countCustomers()'
POST /customer/123?cmd=sendEmail
POST /cmd/sendEmail?customerId=123
GET /customer/count
You basically have two options:
Use PATCH (but note that you have to define your own media type that specifies what will happen exactly)
Use POST to a sub resource and return 303 See Other with the Location header pointing to the main resource. The intention of the 303 is to tell the client: "I have performed your POST and the effect was that some other resource was updated. See Location header for which resource that was." POST/303 is intended for iterative additions to a resources to build up the state of some main resource and it is a perfect fit for partial updates.
You should use POST for partial updates.
To update fields for customer 123, make a POST to /customer/123.
If you want to update just the status, you could also PUT to /customer/123/status.
Generally, GET requests should not have any side effects, and PUT is for writing/replacing the entire resource.
This follows directly from HTTP, as seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_PUT#Request_methods
You should use PATCH for partial updates - either using json-patch documents (see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-08 or http://www.mnot.net/blog/2012/09/05/patch) or the XML patch framework (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5261). In my opinion though, json-patch is the best fit for your kind of business data.
PATCH with JSON/XML patch documents has very strait forward semantics for partial updates. If you start using POST, with modified copies of the original document, for partial updates you soon run into problems where you want missing values (or, rather, null values) to represent either "ignore this property" or "set this property to the empty value" - and that leads down a rabbit hole of hacked solutions that in the end will result in your own kind of patch format.
You can find a more in-depth answer here: http://soabits.blogspot.dk/2013/01/http-put-patch-or-post-partial-updates.html.
I am running into a similar problem. PUT on a sub-resource seems to work when you want to update only a single field. However, sometimes you want to update a bunch of things: Think of a web form representing the resource with option to change some entries. The user's submission of form should not result in a multiple PUTs.
Here are two solution that I can think of:
do a PUT with the entire resource. On the server-side, define the semantics that a PUT with the entire resource ignores all the values that haven't changed.
do a PUT with a partial resource. On the server-side, define the semantics of this to be a merge.
2 is just a bandwidth-optimization of 1. Sometimes 1 is the only option if the resource defines some fields are required fields (think proto buffers).
The problem with both these approaches is how to clear a field. You will have to define a special null value (especially for proto buffers since null values are not defined for proto buffers) that will cause clearing of the field.
Comments?
RFC 7396: JSON Merge Patch (published four years after the question was posted) describes the best practices for a PATCH in terms of the format and processing rules.
In a nutshell, you submit an HTTP PATCH to a target resource with the application/merge-patch+json MIME media type and a body representing only the parts that you want to be changed/added/removed and then follow the below processing rules.
Rules:
If the provided merge patch contains members that do not appear within the target, those members are added.
If the target does contain the member, the value is replaced.
Null values in the merge patch are given special meaning to indicate the removal of existing values in the target.
Example test cases that illustrate the rules above (as seen in the appendix of that RFC):
ORIGINAL PATCH RESULT
--------------------------------------------
{"a":"b"} {"a":"c"} {"a":"c"}
{"a":"b"} {"b":"c"} {"a":"b",
"b":"c"}
{"a":"b"} {"a":null} {}
{"a":"b", {"a":null} {"b":"c"}
"b":"c"}
{"a":["b"]} {"a":"c"} {"a":"c"}
{"a":"c"} {"a":["b"]} {"a":["b"]}
{"a": { {"a": { {"a": {
"b": "c"} "b": "d", "b": "d"
} "c": null} }
} }
{"a": [ {"a": [1]} {"a": [1]}
{"b":"c"}
]
}
["a","b"] ["c","d"] ["c","d"]
{"a":"b"} ["c"] ["c"]
{"a":"foo"} null null
{"a":"foo"} "bar" "bar"
{"e":null} {"a":1} {"e":null,
"a":1}
[1,2] {"a":"b", {"a":"b"}
"c":null}
{} {"a": {"a":
{"bb": {"bb":
{"ccc": {}}}
null}}}
For modifying the status I think a RESTful approach is to use a logical sub-resource which describes the status of the resources. This IMO is pretty useful and clean when you have a reduced set of statuses. It makes your API more expressive without forcing the existing operations for your customer resource.
Example:
POST /customer/active <-- Providing entity in the body a new customer
{
... // attributes here except status
}
The POST service should return the newly created customer with the id:
{
id:123,
... // the other fields here
}
The GET for the created resource would use the resource location:
GET /customer/123/active
A GET /customer/123/inactive should return 404
For the PUT operation, without providing a Json entity it will just update the status
PUT /customer/123/inactive <-- Deactivating an existing customer
Providing an entity will allow you to update the contents of the customer and update the status at the same time.
PUT /customer/123/inactive
{
... // entity fields here except id and status
}
You are creating a conceptual sub-resource for your customer resource. It is also consistent with Roy Fielding's definition of a resource: "...A resource is a conceptual mapping to a set of entities, not the entity that corresponds to the mapping at any particular point in time..." In this case the conceptual mapping is active-customer to customer with status=ACTIVE.
Read operation:
GET /customer/123/active
GET /customer/123/inactive
If you make those calls one right after the other one of them must return status 404, the successful output may not include the status as it is implicit. Of course you can still use GET /customer/123?status=ACTIVE|INACTIVE to query the customer resource directly.
The DELETE operation is interesting as the semantics can be confusing. But you have the option of not publishing that operation for this conceptual resource, or use it in accordance with your business logic.
DELETE /customer/123/active
That one can take your customer to a DELETED/DISABLED status or to the opposite status (ACTIVE/INACTIVE).
Things to add to your augmented question. I think you can often perfectly design more complicated business actions. But you have to give away the method/procedure style of thinking and think more in resources and verbs.
mail sendings
POST /customers/123/mails
payload:
{from: x#x.com, subject: "foo", to: y#y.com}
The implementation of this resource + POST would then send out the mail. if necessary you could then offer something like /customer/123/outbox and then offer resource links to /customer/mails/{mailId}.
customer count
You could handle it like a search resource (including search metadata with paging and num-found info, which gives you the count of customers).
GET /customers
response payload:
{numFound: 1234, paging: {self:..., next:..., previous:...} customer: { ...} ....}
Use PUT for updating incomplete/partial resource.
You can accept jObject as parameter and parse its value to update the resource.
Below is the Java function which you can use as a reference :
public IHttpActionResult Put(int id, JObject partialObject) {
Dictionary < string, string > dictionaryObject = new Dictionary < string, string > ();
foreach(JProperty property in json.Properties()) {
dictionaryObject.Add(property.Name.ToString(), property.Value.ToString());
}
int id = Convert.ToInt32(dictionaryObject["id"]);
DateTime startTime = Convert.ToDateTime(orderInsert["AppointmentDateTime"]);
Boolean isGroup = Convert.ToBoolean(dictionaryObject["IsGroup"]);
//Call function to update resource
update(id, startTime, isGroup);
return Ok(appointmentModelList);
}
Check out http://www.odata.org/
It defines the MERGE method, so in your case it would be something like this:
MERGE /customer/123
<customer>
<status>DISABLED</status>
</customer>
Only the status property is updated and the other values are preserved.
Regarding your Update.
The concept of CRUD I believe has caused some confusion regarding API design. CRUD is a general low level concept for basic operations to perform on data, and HTTP verbs are just request methods (created 21 years ago) that may or may not map to a CRUD operation. In fact, try to find the presence of the CRUD acronym in the HTTP 1.0/1.1 specification.
A very well explained guide that applies a pragmatic convention can be found in the Google cloud platform API documentation. It describes the concepts behind the creation of a resource based API, one that emphasizes a big amount of resources over operations, and includes the use cases that you are describing. Although is a just a convention design for their product, I think it makes a lot of sense.
The base concept here (and one that produces a lot of confusion) is the mapping between "methods" and HTTP verbs. One thing is to define what "operations" (methods) your API will do over which types of resources (for example, get a list of customers, or send an email), and another are the HTTP verbs. There must be a definition of both, the methods and the verbs that you plan to use and a mapping between them.
It also says that, when an operation does not map exactly with a standard method (List, Get, Create, Update, Delete in this case), one may use "Custom methods", like BatchGet, which retrieves several objects based on several object id input, or SendEmail.
It doesn't matter. In terms of REST, you can't do a GET, because it's not cacheable, but it doesn't matter if you use POST or PATCH or PUT or whatever, and it doesn't matter what the URL looks like. If you're doing REST, what matters is that when you get a representation of your resource from the server, that representation is able give the client state transition options.
If your GET response had state transitions, the client just needs to know how to read them, and the server can change them if needed. Here an update is done using POST, but if it was changed to PATCH, or if the URL changes, the client still knows how to make an update:
{
"customer" :
{
},
"operations":
[
"update" :
{
"method": "POST",
"href": "https://server/customer/123/"
}]
}
You could go as far as to list required/optional parameters for the client to give back to you. It depends on the application.
As far as business operations, that might be a different resource linked to from the customer resource. If you want to send an email to the customer, maybe that service is it's own resource that you can POST to, so you might include the following operation in the customer resource:
"email":
{
"method": "POST",
"href": "http://server/emailservice/send?customer=1234"
}
Some good videos, and example of the presenter's REST architecture are these. Stormpath only uses GET/POST/DELETE, which is fine since REST has nothing to do with what operations you use or how URLs should look (except GETs should be cacheable):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pspy1H6A3FM,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WXYw4J4QOU,
http://docs.stormpath.com/rest/quickstart/
Related
I have the following resources in my system 1. Services 2. Features where a feature has the following JSON structure,
{
id: "featureName",
state: "active",
allowList: [serviceID1, serviceID2],
denyList: [serviceID3, serviceID4]
}
I am trying to update the allowList or denyList which consists of serviceIDs and thinking of using PATCH method to do it like below,
/features/{featureId}/allowlist
/features/{featureId}/denylist
/features/{featureName}/state/{state}
My first question is should I even include allowlist, state, denylist in the url as my resources are services and features, not the allowlist or denylist.
How should the rest endpoint look like?
After reading thread mentioned below I was thinking about restructuring urls as below,
/features/{featureId}
[
{ "op": "add", "path": "/allowList", "value": [ "serviceA", "serviceB"]},
{ "op": "update", "path": "/state", "value": false}
]
Lastly, the use of PATCH even justified here? or there is any better way to design the api.
Note: I have got some help from the thread REST design for update/add/delete item from a list of subresources but have not used patch often.
How should the rest endpoint look like?
The URI that you use to edit (PUT, PATCH) a resource should look the same as the URI that you use to read (GET) the resource. The motivation for this design is cache-invalidation; your successful writes automatically invalidate previously cached reads of the same resource (same URI).
Lastly, the use of PATCH even justified here? or there is any better way to design the api.
In this example, the representation of the document is small compared to the HTTP headers, and the size of your patch document is close to the size of the resource representation. If that's the typical case, I'd be inclined to use PUT rather than PATCH. PUT has idempotent semantics, which general purpose components can take advantage of (for example, automatically resending requests when the response to an earlier request has been lost on the network).
GET /features/1 by user1
PUT /features/1 //done by user 2
PUT /features/1 //done by user1
the PUT by user2 will not be visible for user1 and user1 will make an update on the old object's state (with id=1) what can be done in this situation?
Conditional Requests.
You arrange things such that (a) the GET request from the server includes validators that identify the representation (b) the server responds 428 Precondition Required when the request lacks conditional headers (c) the clients know to read the validators from the resource metadata, and use the correct condition headers when submitting the PUT request (d) the server knows to compare the validator to the current representation before accepting the new representation.
The Situation:
Via POST operation, users can create a new resource based on given parameters. If there already exists a resource created from these same parameters, the existing resource is returned instead.
Users are able to GET this resource if they know the resource ID (generated on creation, and is effectively random). I would like to provide users a way to check existence only knowing the creation parameters and without creating a new resource.
The Question:
Would it be RESTful to take some kind of "just-checking" property in the POST body to prevent a new resource from being created?
An Example:
POST vehicle
{
colour: 'red',
wheels: 4
}
201: {
vehicleId: '314-159',
colour: 'red',
wheels: 4
}
GET vehicle/314-159
200: {
vehicleId: '314-159',
colour: 'red',
wheels: 4
}
POST vehicle
{
colour: 'red',
wheels: 4,
check: true
}
200: {
vehicleId: '314-159',
colour: 'red',
wheels: 4
}
POST vehicle
{
colour: 'blue',
wheels: 8,
check: true
}
404: Not Found
Edit
Much of the discussion has been around whether the POST operation should be idempotent, which, while valid, does not address my question.
I would like to provide my users with a way to validate the existence of a resource based only on the properties that would be used to create the resource.
The idempotency of the POST method is irrelevant. What suffers from the absence of this check is subsequent GET requests which will contain a number of resources that are never intended to be used, and make it more difficult to find useful information.
A POST request containing a "do-not-create" flag would fill this need, but may not feel RESTful.
How about implementing an idempotent post? In doing so you could avoid the “check” body param.
2 ideas:
Use PUT and natural keys
One option (not sure if this works for you) is to not use some database-id in the url but use something that's a bit more like a natural key.
So instead of POSTing on some collection, you just PUT the item:
PUT /vehicles/colour/blue/wheels/8
PUT can also be used for creation just fine. And you could use a header such as this to prevent overwriting existing values:
If-None-Match: *
Don't put it on the client to do this
What if a POST for creating an item is identical to updating it? Or, what if you call POST on an existing item, it just doesn't actually do anything.
Maybe the client doesn't need to know if it just created a new item, or if the server already had that item.
Just make sure that for those 2 cases the server behaves the same, and you should be good.
Users are able to GET this resource if they know the resource ID (generated on creation, and is effectively random). I would like to provide users a way to check existence only knowing the creation parameters and without creating a new resource.
How would you do it with a web site?
Probably, with a form, that would accept as inputs the same creation parameters. The user is in effect performing a search, which is a semantically safe operation, so the form would likely use the GET method and have the arguments from the form encoded into the query string.
The endpoint, on receiving that request, could redirect it to the appropriate resource (if one already exists) or to another resource to handle the case when it doesn't.
Would it be RESTful to take some kind of "just-checking" property in the POST body to prevent a new resource from being created?
Sure - again, how would you do this on a web site? The form would have an extra checkbox, set to the correct default behavior, but giving the user the option to change it before submitting the form.
Because switching the check box changes the semantics from a safe operation to an unsafe operation, you might want to change the method on the form during submission -- HTML by itself doesn't do that, but you can do it with javascript aka code on demand.
Using POST for safe operations isn't ideal, because generic components can't tell that the operation is safe. This means that they can't know to automatically retry the request if the response is lost, they don't have the correct default cache behaviors, and so on.
For the record, the solution chosen was to add options for a special case on the GET method.
As touched on in this answer, it is not quite in the spirit of the POST method to perform this type of operation, and it muddies the model being presented to the users.
I'm in a situation where I have something similar to shopping cart. I have a set of products with known IDs I then want to create a subset with modified prices and later modify this subset
Superset
[{
"productId":1,
"price":1.99
},
{
"productId":2,
"price":2.99
},
{
"productId":3,
"price":3.99
},
{
"productId":4,
"price":4.99
}]
...
Modified Subset
[{
"productId":1,
"price":1.59
},
{
"productId":3,
"price":2.59
}]
Then I want to modify the subset again to look like
[{
"productId":1,
"price":1.79
},
{
"productId":2,
"price":3.59
}]
All I can think of is client sending a POST request like
{
"productsAdded":[
{
"productId":2,
"price":3.59
}
],
"productsModified":[
{
"productId":1,
"price":1.79
}
],
"productsDeleted":[
{
"productId":3,
"price":2.59
}
]
}
The constraints are that I would like to avoid multiple calls to correct verbs and not send the entire subset. As the actual objects have many more fields and there are thousands of objects in a subset. The update then saves the state triggers a long running fire and forget task.
The problem I see with this is that client potentially has to create a delta of
the state and the server has to reconstruct the state from the message.
This might not be a bad approach, but I am wondering if there are alternative solutions
Updating a collection the RESTful way
The Atom Publishing Protocol is built around the idea of modifying collections of atom entries in the REST architectural style. You might start out by reviewing that design.
All I can think of is client sending a POST request like
That's really close to a JSON Patch representation.
The idea is that if the client and the server share the same (usually standardized) understanding of the media-type, then they can continue to collaborate even as they are developed independently.
So using POST to pass a JSONPatch representation of the change to the resource is a good starting point; if you don't like JSONPatch (perhaps because it is domain agnostic), you could define your own more specific media type and use that.
(Note: though the message type is called "patch", you don't actually need to use the PATCH method in your API. POST on its own, PATCH on its own, or both are all acceptable alternatives.)
Your proposed solution has all of the caveats you mentioned and more. Suggestions:
Modify each object individually through independent requests using
the appropriate HTTP verbs POST, PUT, PATCH, DELETE.
Return the entire collection to be processed on the server using the
appropriate HTTP verb PUT.
Return the partial collection to be processed on the server using the appropriate HTTP verb PATCH.
Additional reference links:
https://restfulapi.net/http-methods/
http://www.restapitutorial.com/lessons/httpmethods.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7231#section-4.3.3
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5789
http://roy.gbiv.com/untangled/2009/it-is-okay-to-use-post
How may I include, using JsonApi, links to methods in my Rest API?, for example I have something like this:
POST api/v1/customer/1/deactivate
POST api/v1/customer/1/activate
To activate and deactivate a customer correspondingly. How they should be included (or not) in my data object? The specification does not include something like "methods" section for the data object.
Updating based on your change and based on guillaume31's answer.
If it is truly an update to a resource then you should issue a PATCH to:
api/v1/customer/1
And with a jsonapi compliant body to update the resource:
{
"data": {
"type": "customer",
"id": "1",
"attributes": {
"status": "deactivated"
}
}
}
If the intent is to truly remove the resource then a delete may be more appropriate. Based on your description the PATCH may be the best path since the resource is still present and may be restored based on other calls
POST api/v1/customer/1/deactivate
POST api/v1/customer/1/activate
This is not RESTful. But the "active" state of a customer can be seen as a resource! So the simplest solution is the following:
PUT api/v1/customer/1/active # Activates customer 1
DELETE api/v1/customer/1/active # Deactivates customer 1
The PATCH solution described by #guillaume31 is also a valid approach, but implementing RESTful PATCH correctly requires that the change is described with operation, data pointer and new value (see also the JSON Patch RFC). That's probably overkill for this simple scenario.
By including "deactivate" as part of the URI, you're kind of making deactivate a resource, which seems incorrect. This IMO isn't REST level 1 compliant.
As I understand it, activating/deactivating a customer amounts to updating a resource. JsonApi recommends sending a PATCH request to modify a resource : http://jsonapi.org/format/#crud-updating
However, it would perhaps be more faithful to REST to model activation as a POST or a PUT and deactivation as a DELETE. You would benefit from PUT and DELETE's idempotency -- activating or deactivating a customer twice in a row should probably leave it in the same state. But it also depends on your domain and what consequences these actions have.
In the REST frameworks I know, verbs are not included in links out of the box. I doesn't seem to be the case with JSON API either.
How to I represent a complex resource for a REST post?
Hello,
Currently I have an application which when the user hits "save" it iterates over all of the form elements and creates one mass object which manages a:
var = params = [{
attributes1: form1.getValues(),
attributes2: form2.getValues(),
.. ..
}];
I then send this mass object via a RPC POST to my "Entity" model service.
This entity which I wish to persist data for is quite complex. All in all, the data is spread accross about 30 tables. To help explain my actual question, the "entity" is a building (as in a physical property/house/apartment).
What I would like, is to be able to turn my mess into a RESTful API for saving properties.
The problem I have is that, saving details for a single model that spans a single table is fine. How do I structure my data object for transport when the model has
many to many relationships
one to many relationships
one to one relationships
For example:
Here is a WATERED down version of what I might have on a property and the sample data
propertyId: 1,
locationId: 231234,
propertyName: "Brentwood",
kitchenFeatures: [
{ featureId: 1, details: "Induction hob"},
{ featureId:23, details: "900W microwave"}
],
propertyThemes: [ 12,32,54,65 ]
This actually goes on a lot more.. but you can get the general gist. kitchenFeatures would be an example of a many-to-many, where I have a featuresTable which has all of the features like so:
`featureId`, `feature`
1 "Oven Hob"
23 "Microwave"
and propertyThemes would be an example of another many-to-many.
How am I expected to form my "object" to my RESTful service? Is this even possible?
ie. If I want to save this property I would send it to:
http://example.com/api/property/1
The approach I would use here is hypermedia and links:
/property
/property/{id}
/property/{id}/features/{id}
Depending on your domain you might even get away with:
/property/{id}/features/{name}
or
/property/{id}/features/byname/{name}
Thus you can do REST operations and serve JSON or XHTML hypermedia.
Property details:
Request: GET /property/1
Response:
{
..
"name": "Brentwood",
"features": "/property/1/features"
..
}
Brentwood's features:
GET /property/1/features
{
..
"Kitchen": "/property/1/features/1",
"Dog Room": "/property/1/features/dog%20room",
..
}
GET /property/1/features/1
{
..
"Induction hob": "/property/1/features/1/1",
"900W microwave": "/property/1/features/1/23",
"nav-next" : "/property/1/features/dog%20room",
..
}
To add a relation you can do something like this:
POST /property/1/features
{
..
"Name": "Oven Hob"
..
}
If you know what the relation will be you use a PUT:
PUT /property/1/features/23
{
..
"Name": "Oven Hob"
..
}
You can serve multiple media types:
GET http://host/property/1/features/dog%20room.json
GET http://host/property/1/features/dog%20room.xhtml
For the response in xhtml the response can use named links like this:
..
Kitchen
..
There are other aspects of REST that you can use such as response code which I did not include above.
Thus, to model relations you make use of links which can be in itself a resource that can be operated on with GET, PUT, POST and DELETE or even custom verbs such as ASSOCIATE or LINK. But the first four are the ones that people are used to. Remember PUT is idempotent but not POST. See PUT vs POST in REST
Edit: You can group your links into JSON arrays to give structure to your hypermedia.
I think you're really asking, "How do I represent complex data in a form suitable for transmission within a POST?", right? It's less to do with REST and more to do with your choice of media type. I would suggest starting with a pure JSON representation, using arrays and cross-referenced ID fields to map the relationships. You could also do this with XML, of course.
The examples you gave look right on the money. You just need to ensure that both parties (browser and server) agree on the structure and interpretation of the media type you use.
I'm dealing with the exact same thing. I opted to not use id's anywhere, but use urls everywhere an id would normally be expected.
So in your case, the kitchenfeatures could simply be an array with urls to:
/feature/1
/feature/23
And the themes to
/propertyTheme/12
/propertyTheme/32
etc..
In the case of many-to-many relationships, we update all the relations as a whole. Usually we simply dump the existing data, and insert the new relationships.
For one to many relationships we sometimes extend the urls a bit where this makes sense. If you were to have comments functionality on a 'property', this could look like
/property/1/comment/5
But this really depends on the situation for us, for other cases we put it in the top-level namespace.
Is this helpful to you?