Is it important to include status in Django? - json

I am working on project where I'm importing, parsing and showing JSON data on site. I wanted to ask if it's important to add in JsonResponse "status" attribute.
For example: return JsonResponse({"details":"Data parsed successfully!"}, safe=False, status=200)

Yes, it is pretty much important. It might seem useless at the beginning, but it shows that you actually control what is happening and you can predict what can go wrong (actually most important!).
Status codes are universal and usually give fast feedback what went wrong without any further information. It's good practice to always add status to response that is sent from your application.

Related

Postman Validation and Documentation Problems

I am having trouble to understand how I should use postman. I am trying to write a schema to validate my test collection. Doing this I ran into a few problems:
Name/Description validation: In our test collection we have several requests to the same path, with different names. For example we have the path {{baseUrl}}/user/{id}. With this path we can create(POST) several types of users. Each request needs to be tested and has its own name (create childUser, create parentUser, create masterUser, etc).
The problem now is, when validating with the schema we get issues for every request name and description. When I remove the name from the schema, it takes the path as name which also shows issues when validating.
I think I am using it wrong. How can I identify each test request uniquely without destroying the validation?
Also when validating my API under "Test" I get "Issues found" but when I click on it the list is empty.. This is very confusing.
How do you use schema validation properly with a big test collection?
Also, the schema documentation is not generating properly and is not showing any errors. It just generates the title and server list. Any clue anyone? Also when I don't add a Collection Documentation it doesn't even show up.
Thanks in advance
John

Non-standard JSON and Azure Logic Apps

I have an API that produces JSON like this:
)]}',
{
//JSON DATA
}
The //JSON DATA is valid JSON, but the )]}', up top is not.
When I try to GET this data via a Logic App, I get:
BadRequest. Http request failed: the content was not a valid JSON.
So, a few related questions:
1) Can I tell the logic app to return the invalid JSON anyway?
2) How can debug the issue better? I happen to know that the response is invalid, but what if I didn't? Can I see the raw data somewhere?
3) This is all done via the Azure web portal. Are there better tools? Visual Studio?
I should also mention that if I call a route on the same API that returns XML instead of JSON, then the Logic App works fine. So it definitely doesn't like the JSON response in particular.
Thanks!
First of all, please do not post three questions as a single question.
Question 1). The best thing you can do is make the API return a valid JSON object. This is good for million reasons. Here're a few:
it's pretty much a standard (either valid JSON or XML -- yeah, old school way);
therefore, no users of this API (including you) will need to struggle and guess what's going on and why;
your Logic App's step will just work without adding extra complexity;
you will make this world and your karma better.
If API-side changes are not within your reach, I don't think you can do much. If you're lucky and the HTTP action is successful (Status Code 2xx), you can try to use a Query Action with a function that truncates the first characters. It will look something like this (I don't know the exact syntax): #Substring(body('myHttpGet'), 4, length(body('myHttpGet')) - 4) where myHttpGet is the id of the Http Get action.
However, once again, if possible, I strongly recommend fixing up the API which is the root cause of the problem, instead of dealing with garbage response after that.
UPDATE Another thing you can do is wrap the dirty API. For example, you could create a trivial Azure Function that invokes the API you don't directly control, and sanitizes the response for you consumption requirements. This Azure Function function should be easy to call from the Logic App. It costs almost nothing (unless we're talking millions of requests/month). The only drawback here is the increasing latency, which may be not an issue at all -- test it and see whether it adds less than 100ms or so... Oh, and don't forget to file a ticket with the API owner, they make our world a bad place!
Question 2) In Azure Logic App web UI you can Look into the execution details and the error will definitely be there.
Question 3) You're asking for a tool recommendation which is by definition a highly subjective thing and is off-topic on StackOverflow.
TL/DR: The other app is not producing valid JSON.
Meaning, this is not a problem for you to solve. The other app has to return valid JSON if the owner claims it should.
If they cannot or will not produce valid JSON, then the first thing you need to do is inform your management that you will have to spend a lot of extra time accommodating their non-standard format.

what happens if submit a form without input names?

I know it's a stupid question, but if I fill a form with various inputs but I don't give them a name and id, and I POST it to a php page, does the posted query contain any data?
If it does, then using inputs without names in a form result in a wasted sending time. am I right?
Is there any difference between GET and POST in this case?
I presume that the browser (client-side) determines what to send and what to not send.
I'll try to see what happens if i send a GET request: if in the browser bar appear something, some data has been sent.
But the POST method is still a mistery for me... when I have time I'll try to print the $_POST array. thanks for the "input" #MattP
I update my question after somebody attack: I printed down the result of $_POST and $_GET, but still, I think the only answer to my question is to check the weight of the data, not the things recognized by the server. If i send unnamed data to the server, the server may discard that ad take only the ones with the name.
(sorry for the bad english)
No, they won't get the data. id is optional, but for PHP to do anything it requires the name attribute.

Is it possible to parse a Google+ (Google Plus) profile page?

If you view the source of a Google+ profile page, it appears rather complex. It seems most of the data is kept in a huge JSON-like objects. However, they don't seem to be really JSON, since they don't get recognized when I try to decode them. I am hoping the format is more clear to other people here. How would you go about parsing it? It seems it would fairly trivial, if you know where to start.
Here is a sample profile, for example: http://plus.google.com/104560124403688998123
Here's a PHP API I'm working on. It can download and parse the data for a profile page and people's public relationships.
https://github.com/jmstriegel/php.googleplusapi
The JSON piece is a bit mangled. To generate valid JSON, you basically have to remove the first 5 characters that prevent XSRF attacks and then add in all the nulls that have been removed. Here's the code specific to handling parsing the weird Google Plus JSON responses:
https://github.com/jmstriegel/php.googleplusapi/blob/master/lib/GooglePlus/GoogleUtil.php
Call GoogleUtil::FetchGoogleJSON( $url ) and you'll get back a giant array that you can then pull data from. Using this, it should be trivial to make a proxy service to translate stuff into valid json(p) for you to use in your own apps.
I don't have access to Google+ yet, so I'll just answer the general question - that is, how to parse JSON.
JSON is just JavaScript, so parsing it is as simple as evaluating the script. To do this, use the eval() JavaScript function.
var obj = eval('{"JSON":"goes here"}');
Another option is to leverage a console tool. Popular modern browsers pretty much all have them. I recommend Firebug for Firefox in particular.
Using Firefox, log into Google+, then open the Firebug console. You can use the console's dir() command to create a browseable representation of the data. Ex:
console.dir(eval('{"JSON":"goes here"}'));
Sorry I can't be more specific about how to get a handle on Google+'s JSON in particular; without access to the service, this is about the best I can do blind. Good luck!
Thanks to Jason for the excellent php class which reads a profile page into an array.
I've used this class as a base and then parsed it, based upon Russell Beattie's python code from the original appspot rss feed application.
Code here
A few notes:
I use this to merge G+ and WP feeds, hence writing posts into an intermediate array ($items).
I have a convention of creating a pseudo title in Google Plus posts, by emboldening a line and adding two newlines before writing the post. The function getTitle strips this out as a better formatted title in my website and getSummary produces the rest of the post with duplicating the title.
It's made up of a number of parts, an object describing your picasa images, one describing the fields on your profile, one describing your friends.
Most of the long numbers are the internal IDs of people, posts and photos. For instance, my ID is 105249724614922381234. Other than that, it could be parsed if you needed to.

HTML interface to RESTful web service *without* javascript

Even if I offer alternatives to PUT and DELETE (c.f. "Low REST"), how can I provide user-friendly form validation for users who access my web service from the browser, while still exposing RESTful URIs? The form validation problem (described below) is my current quandry, but the broader question I want to ask is: if I go down the path of trying to provide both a RESTful public interface and a non-javascript HTML interface, is it going to make life easier or harder? Do they play together at all?
In theory, it should be merely a matter of varying the output format. A machine can query the URL "/people", and get a list of people in XML. A human user can point their browser at the same URL, and get a pretty HTML response instead. (I'm using the URL examples from the microformats wiki, which seem fairly reasonable).
Creating a new person resource is done with a POST request to the "/people" URL. To achieve this, the human user can first visit "/people/new", which returns a static HTML form for creating the resource. The form has method=POST and action="/people". That will work fine if the user's input is valid, but what if we do validation on the server side and discover an error? The friendly thing would be to return the form, populated with the data the user just entered, plus an error message so that they can fix the problem and resubmit. But we can't return that output directly from a POST to "/people" or it breaks our URL system, and if we redirect the user back to the "/people/new" form then there is no way to report the error and repopulate the form (unless we store the data to session state, which would be even less RESTful).
With javascript, things would be much easier. Just do the POST in the background, and if it fails then display the error at the top of the form. But I want the app to degrade gracefully when javascript support isn't available. At the moment, I'm led to conclude that a non-trivial web app cannot implement an HTML interface without javascript, and use a conventional RESTful URL scheme (such as that described on the microformats wiki). If I'm wrong, please tell me so!
Related questions on Stack Overflow (neither of which deal with form validation):
How to send HTML form RESTfully?
How do you implement resource "edit" forms in a RESTful way?
you could have the html form post directly to /people/new. If the validation fails, rerender the edit form with the appropriate information. If it succeeds, forward the user to the new URL. This would be consistent with the REST architecture as I understand it.
I saw you comment to Monis Iqbal, and I have to admit I don't know what you mean by "non-RESTful URLS". The only thing the REST architecture asks from a URL is that it be opaque, and that it be uniquely paired to a resource. REST doesn't care what it looks like, what's in it, how slashes or used, how many are used, or anything like that. The visible design of the URL is up to you and REST has no bearing.
Thanks for the responses. They have freed my mind a bit, and so in response to my own question I would like to propose an alternative set of RESTful URL conventions which actually embrace the two methods (GET and POST) of the non-AJAX world, instead of trying to work around them.
Edit: As commenters have pointed out, these "conventions" should not be part of the RESTful API itself. On the other hand, internal conventions are useful because they make the server-side implementation more consistent and hence easier for developers to understand and maintain. RESTful clients, however, should treat the URLs as opaque, and always obtain them as hyperlinks, never by constructing URLs themselves.
GET /people
return a list of all records
GET /people/new
return a form for adding a new record
POST /people/new
create a new record
(for an HTML client, return the form again if the input is invalid, otherwise redirect to the new resource)
GET /people/1
return the first record
GET /people/1/edit
return a form for editing the first record
POST /people/1/edit
update the first record
GET /people/1/delete
return a form for deleting the record
(may be simply a confirmation - are you sure you want to delete?)
POST /people/1/delete
delete the record
There is a pattern here: GET on a resource, e.g. "/people/1", returns the record itself. GET on resource+operation returns an HTML form, e.g. "/people/1/edit". POST on resource+operation actually executes the operation.
Perhaps this is not quite so elegant as using additional HTTP verbs (PUT and DELETE), but these URLs should work well with vanilla HTML forms. They should also be pretty self-explanatory to a human user...I'm a believer in the idea that "the URL is part of the UI" for users accessing the web server via a browser.
P.S. Let me explain how I would do the deletes. The "/people/1" view will have a link to "/people/1/delete", with an onclick javascript handler. With javascript enabled, the click is intercepted and a confirmation box presented to the user. If they confirm the delete, a POST is sent, deleting the record immediately. But if javascript is disabled, clicking the link will instead send a GET request, which returns a delete confirmation form from the server, and that form sends the POST to perform the delete. Thus, javascript improves the user experience (faster response), but without it the website degrades gracefully.
Why do you want to create a second "API" using XML?
Your HTML contains the data your user needs to see. HTML is relatively easy to parse. The class attribute can be used to add semantics as microformats do. Your HTML contains forms and links to be able to access all of the functionality of your application.
Why would you create another interface that delivers completely semantic free application/xml that will likely contain no hypermedia links so that you now have to hard code urls into your client, creating nasty coupling?
If you can get your application working using HTML in a web browser without needing to store session state, then you already have a RESTful API. Don't kill yourself trying to design a bunch of URLs that corresponds to someone's idea of a standard.
Here is a quote from Roy Fielding,
A REST API must not define fixed
resource names or hierarchies
I know this flies in the face of probably almost every example of REST that you have seen but that is because they are all wrong. I know I am starting to sound like a religious zealot, but it kills me to see people struggling to design RESTful API's when they are starting off on completely the wrong foot.
Listen to Breton when he says "REST doesn't care what [the url] looks like" and #Wahnfrieden will be along soon to tell you the same thing. That microformats page is horrible advice for someone trying to do REST. I'm not saying it is horrible advice for someone creating some other kind of HTTP API, just not a RESTful one.
Why not use AJAX to do the work on the client side and if javascript is disabled then design the html so that the conventional POST would work.