I have three service in my angular service module, and I put
Restangular.setBaseUrl(api_url);
in each of my service with different api_url, and I expect to use different service with different url;
but when I post to one of the service say api_url = a/v1/c/, what I get is post to api_url = b/v1/c;
I think the problem is the setBaseUrl part, for example:
factory.Aservice = function(Restangular){
Restangular.setBaseUrl('/a/v1');
var alist= Restangular.all('c/');
return {
createA:function(){
alist.post(data)
}
}
}
factory.Bservice = function(Restangular){
Restangular.setBaseUrl('/b/v1');
var blist= Restangular.all('d/');
return {
createB:function(){
blist.post(data)
}
}
}
when I call Aservice.createA(),the post url is '/b/v1/c',which is wrong.
any idea why?
You don't seem to understand scoping of a serivce. Angular instantiates services in a lazily-loaded manner. Since both your services operate on the same Restangular, it is normal that whichever service loaded last, would be the one that will override the restangular configuration last:
http://plnkr.co/edit/o974TqeunG9DGQONRNDT?p=preview
I created a Plunkr which illustrates that.
Also created a Plunkr which shows the correct way to do that.
http://plnkr.co/edit/XYEQpLZaRAjxNUImCJMP?p=preview
You can also use separate configurations for each service as explained here: https://github.com/mgonto/restangular#how-to-create-a-restangular-service-with-a-different-configuration-from-the-global-one
app.factory('ServiceA', function(Restangular) {
return Restangular.withConfig(function(RestangularConfigurer) {
// service has different address from serviceB
RestangularConfigurer.setBaseUrl('http://service-a.example.com/a/v1');
});
});
app.factory('ServiceB', function(Restangular) {
return Restangular.withConfig(function(RestangularConfigurer) {
// service has different address from serviceA
RestangularConfigurer.setBaseUrl('http://service-b.example.com/b/v1');
});
});
Related
When I add bot.hears(...), it registers middleware for handling matching text messages. But now it will handle those messages even if they are sent any time, even if not expected.
So if I am creating a stateful service, I would like to listen to particular messages only at appropriate time.
How can I unregister middleware, so that it does not hear any more previously handled messages?
I turned out I was looking for Scenes. How to use them is described on Github.
I'll just post a slightly modified code from the links above:
const { Telegraf, Scenes, session } = require('telegraf')
const contactDataWizard = new Scenes.WizardScene(
'CONTACT_DATA_WIZARD_SCENE_ID', // first argument is Scene_ID, same as for BaseScene
(ctx) => {
ctx.reply('Please enter guest\'s first name', Markup.removeKeyboard());
ctx.wizard.state.contactData = {};
return ctx.wizard.next();
},
(ctx) => {
// validation example
if (ctx.message.text.length < 2) {
ctx.reply('Please enter real name');
return;
}
ctx.wizard.state.contactData.firstName = ctx.message.text;
ctx.reply('And last name...');
return ctx.wizard.next();
},
);
const stage = new Scenes.Stage();
stage.register(contactDataWizard);
bot.use(session());
bot.use(stage.middleware());
But I still don't know how to generally implement it, so I need to find it out in the Scenes code of Telegraf.
I had a Array with N number of objects. I want to make a service call sequentially. One response comes based on that i will make a another request. Please provide a better approach to handle this scenario through JOINS in Angular 5.
You can use switchMap for this.
nestedCalls(user: any) {
return this.http.get('YOUR_URL').pipe(
switchMap(data => {
const body = {
// do your work woth data - first service object
};
return this.http.post('YOUR_URL', body);
})
)
}
Or you can do something like below also :
this.service.getData(id, (response) => {
this.service.getInitiatedEntity(response.id).subscribe(
(retData) => {
// response - 1st service data
// retData - 2nd service data
}
);
});
Hope this help.
We have WCF services (web hosted in IIS) separatd by domains. We added some claim based security by adding ClaimsAuthorizationManager and overriding the CheckAccess method. Basicaly, we check if the ClaimsPrincipal have the permission needed to execute the method.
Inside the service method :
public DemandePaeDto ObtenirInfoDemandePAE(int idPreDemande, int numeroSequencePreDemande)
{
if (!ClaimsPrincipal.Current.CheckAccess(Management, "DoSomething"))
return null;
Inside the ClaimsAuthorizationManager :
public class FacadeClaimsAuthorizationManager : ClaimsAuthorizationManager
{
public override bool CheckAccess(AuthorizationContext context)
{
var user = context.Principal;
var resource = context.Resource.First().Value;
foreach (var action in context.Action)
{
switch (resource)
{
case "Management":
case "Sales":
case "Product":
if (user.HasClaim(OurOwnCustomClaimTypes.Permission, action.Value))
{
return true;
}
break;
//Pour les cas non gérés
default:
return false;
}
}
return false;
}
}
The problem is when we need to test the services functionalities with WCF Storm of other test tool, we don't have the claims because we set the security mode to false. So we would like to add a custom parameter to all calls. That way we'd be able to bypass by returning true in the CheckAccess method. I've think about MessageInpectors, but still am wondering if it's the right approach. I wouldn't like to add the param to the contracts, because I'd have to modify every call in the application.
Do you have a suggestion ?
You will need to use a different ClaimsAuthorizationManager for your tests. Just derive a different version and use that in your testing environment. It could return true on all call for example.
Laravel 4: In the context of consume-your-own-api, my XyzController uses my custom InternalAPiDispatcher class to create a Request object, push it onto a stack (per this consideration), then dispatch the Route:
class InternalApiDispatcher {
// ...
public function dispatch($resource, $method)
{
$this->request = \Request::create($this->apiBaseUrl . '/' . $resource, $method);
$this->addRequestToStack($this->request);
return \Route::dispatch($this->request);
}
To start with, I'm working on a basic GET for a collection, and would like the Response content to be in the format of an Eloquent model, or whatever is ready to be passed to a View (perhaps a repository thingy later on when I get more advanced). It seems inefficient to have the framework create a json response and then I decode it back into something else to display it in a view. What is a simple/efficient/elegant way to direct the Request to return the Response in the format I desire wherever I am in my code?
Also, I've looked at this post a lot, and although I'm handling query string stuff in the BaseContorller (thanks to this answer to my previous question) it all seems to be getting far too convoluted and I feel I'm getting lost in the trees.
EDIT: could the following be relevant (from laravel.com/docs/templates)?
"By specifying the layout property on the controller, the view specified will be created for you and will be the assumed response that should be returned from actions."
Feel free to mark this as OT if you like, but I'm going to suggest that you might want to reconsider your problem in a different light.
If you are "consuming your own API", which is delivered over HTTP, then you should stick to that method of consumption.
For all that it might seem weird, the upside is that you could actually replace that part of your application with some other server altogether. You could run different parts of your app on different boxes, you could rewrite the HTTP part completely, etc, etc. All the benefits of "web scale".
The route you're going down is coupling the publisher and the subscriber. Now, since they are both you, or more accurately your single app, this is not necessarily a bad thing. But if you want the benefits of being able to access your own "stuff" without resorting to HTTP (or at least "HTTP-like") requests, then I wouldn't bother with faking it. You'd be better off defining a different internal non-web Service API, and calling that.
This Service could be the basis of your "web api", and in fact the whole HTTP part could probably be a fairly thin controller layer on top of the core service.
It's not a million miles away from where you are now, but instead of taking something that is meant to output HTTP requests and mangling it, make something that can output objects, and wrap that for HTTP.
Here is how I solved the problem so that there is no json encoding or decoding on an internal request to my API. This solution also demonstrates use of route model binding on the API layer, and use of a repository by the API layer as well. This is all working nicely for me.
Routes:
Route::get('user/{id}/thing', array(
'uses' => 'path\to\Namespace\UserController#thing',
'as' => 'user.thing'));
//...
Route::group(['prefix' => 'api/v1'], function()
{
Route::model('thing', 'Namespace\Thing');
Route::model('user', 'Namespace\User');
Route::get('user/{user}/thing', [
'uses' => 'path\to\api\Namespace\UserController#thing',
'as' => 'api.user.thing']);
//...
Controllers:
UI: UserController#thing
public function thing()
{
$data = $this->dispatcher->dispatch('GET', “api/v1/user/1/thing”)
->getOriginalContent(); // dispatcher also sets config flag...
// use $data in a view;
}
API: UserController#thing
public function thing($user)
{
$rspns = $this->repo->thing($user);
if ($this->isInternalCall()) { // refs config flag
return $rspns;
}
return Response::json([
'error' => false,
'thing' => $rspns->toArray()
], 200);
Repo:
public function thing($user)
{
return $user->thing;
}
Here is how I achieved it in Laravel 5.1. It requires some fundamental changes to the controllers to work.
Instead of outputting response with return response()->make($data), do return $data.
This allows the controller methods to be called from other controllers with App::make('apicontroller')->methodname(). The return will be object/array and not a JSON.
To do processing for the external API, your existing routing stays the same. You probably need a middleware to do some massaging to the response. Here is a basic example that camel cases key names for the JSON.
<?php
namespace App\Http\Middleware;
use Closure;
class ResponseFormer
{
public function handle($request, Closure $next)
{
$response = $next($request);
if($response->headers->get('content-type') == 'application/json')
{
if (is_array($response->original)) {
$response->setContent(camelCaseKeys($response->original));
}
else if (is_object($response->original)) {
//laravel orm returns objects, it is a huge time saver to handle the case here
$response->setContent(camelCaseKeys($response->original->toArray()));
}
}
return $response;
}
}
Greetings one and all!
I'm new to WF 4.0 and WWF in general so forgive me if this seems like a newbie type of question, but believe me I've scoured the depths of the Internet for a solution to this problem, but to no avail.
I have created a sample WF application with a custom CodeActivity that requires an extension be provided, as per below:
public sealed class PreparePizza : CodeActivity
{
public InArgument<Order> Order { get; set; }
protected override void CacheMetadata(CodeActivityMetadata metadata)
{
base.CacheMetadata(metadata);
if (this.Order == null)
metadata.AddValidationError("You must supply an Order.");
metadata.RequireExtension<IPreparePizzaExtension>();
}
// If your activity returns a value, derive from CodeActivity<TResult>
// and return the value from the Execute method.
protected override void Execute(CodeActivityContext context)
{
// Obtain the runtime value of the Text input argument
Order order = context.GetValue(this.Order);
var extension = context.GetExtension<IPreparePizzaExtension>();
extension.Prepare(order);
}
}
public interface IPreparePizzaExtension
{
void Prepare(Order order);
}
I then slot this activity into a workflow service and attempt to consume via my web app by adding a service reference. However, when I add the reference I get:
System.Activities.ValidationException: An extension of type 'PizzaMan.ActivityLibrary.IPreparePizzaExtension' must be configured in order to run this workflow.
Fair enough - of course my activity requires that I pass it an implementation of IPreparePizzaExtension - after all, I've told it to!
So my question is, how on earth do I pass this to the service? I can manage this easily enough in a console app scenario, using the WorkflowInvoker, but I cannot see any obvious way to do this via the service approach. I would assume that obviously a programmatic approach to adding the reference is what's needed, but again I'm at a loss as to precisely how to go about this.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Best regards
Ian
The WorkflowServiceHost has a WorkflowExtensions property where you can add the workflow extenstion. There are several ways you can do that. If you are self hosting this is easy as you create the WorkflowServiceHost. If you are usign IIS you need to create a ServiceHostFactory to configure you WorkflowServiceHost. Finally there is an option to add the workflow extension in the CacheMetadata of your activity using the metadata.AddDefaultExtensionProvider() function.
Solved it as follows, self-hosting style:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Workflow1 workflow = new Workflow1();
// Provide some default values; note: these will be overriden once method on the service is called.
workflow.productID = -1;
Uri address = new Uri("http://localhost:1234/WorkflowService1");
WorkflowServiceHost host = new WorkflowServiceHost(workflow, address);
// Behaviours
host.Description.Behaviors.Add(new ServiceMetadataBehavior { HttpGetEnabled = true });
host.Description.Behaviors.Remove(typeof(ServiceDebugBehavior));
host.Description.Behaviors.Add(new ServiceDebugBehavior { IncludeExceptionDetailInFaults = true });
// Persistence
var connStr = #"";
var behavior = new SqlWorkflowInstanceStoreBehavior(connStr);
behavior.InstanceCompletionAction = InstanceCompletionAction.DeleteNothing;
behavior.InstanceLockedExceptionAction = InstanceLockedExceptionAction.AggressiveRetry;
behavior.InstanceEncodingOption = InstanceEncodingOption.None;
host.Description.Behaviors.Add(behavior);
// Add extension implementations
if (!TEST_MODE)
{
host.WorkflowExtensions.Add(new MyExtension());
}
else
{
host.WorkflowExtensions.Add(new MyExtensionTest());
}
host.Faulted += new EventHandler(host_Faulted);
host.Open();
foreach (System.ServiceModel.Description.ServiceEndpoint endpoint in host.Description.Endpoints)
{
Console.WriteLine(endpoint.Address);
}
Console.WriteLine("Listening...");
Console.ReadLine();
host.Close();
}
My toolkit has configuration support for this. See http://neovolve.codeplex.com/wikipage?title=Neovolve.Toolkit.Workflow.dll%20-%201.1
There is also this method of doing things:
http://wf.codeplex.com/wikipage?title=How%20do%20I%20add%20an%20extension%20to%20a%20WCF%20Workflow%20Service?