I'm a little confused as to what the collection URI's should return.
Say I have a collection, /users of decently large elements. Then we have the expected:
GET /users/123 // returns user element with identifier 123
But what should
GET /users
return? If the collection is large, and the elements are large, it's probably not a good thing to return all elements. Perhaps instead, GET requests at the /users level should return element summaries (identifiers and possibly a few properties), while GET requests at the /users/ level should return actual elements. Then you could do something like;
GET /users
> [{name: abc, id: 1}, {name: def, id: 2}, {name: ghi, id: 3}, ...]
GET /users/2
> {name: def, prop1: *, prop2: *, ...}
Which could be a good way to lazily load data if you wanted to preview important application-domain properties before requesting them in their entirety. With this, in order to apply queries, you'd do something like
GET /users?prop1=value // returns element summaries of elements with prop1=value
GET /users/?prop1=value // returns elements with prop1 = value
Is this approach OK? Or do the other methods acting on /users then loose meaning.. (ex. PUT /users ?)
I personally like the style where /users does not return all users but returns information needed to then query specific users. So the summaries approach is how I would generally write it.
If you were filtering or querying, I would go with the first one you provided:
GET /users?prop1=value
I don't care for the second one
GET /users/?prop1=value
because it can be easily misunderstood or lead to confusing and unintended bugs (missing one slash still works but completely changes the results).
You might want to go with an approach of an alternative URL for returning specific users based on search parameters such as
GET /users?prop1=value // returns element summaries based on results of prop1 matching
GET /users/find?prop1=value // returns elements with prop1 = value
Obviously your wording could change (find/search) or you could use a completely different URI but I try to avoid things where two different meanings are a single character/symbol apart to avoid unintended mistakes. Another option would be to make sure you outline this clearly in provided documentation so anyone consuming your API is alerted about this potential.
Actually expanding on this I would go with the all construct.
So instead of using find/search I would provide:
GET /users // returns summaries
GET /users/# // returns element
GET /users/all // returns all elements
GET /users/all?prop1=value // returns all elements that match the filter
Related
I have a gallery entity with accompanying gallery contents. Some of the contents are not yet approved for ordinary user.
On which level is most optimal, to filter out contents that are not approved?
Example1:
I have API endpoint, that returns all galleries and includes contents (/api/gallery?include=contents). From this list, contents that are not approved, should be removed, if user_level < some_value.
Example2:
when I list content by ID (/api/content/{id}), result should be empty for user_level < some_value.
I know I can set up different methods in controller to filter out not approved contents, but that means duplicating code.
Is there a place through which each this return result goes that I could define this filter?
I tried in contentTransformer, to return empty array but then API call result lists array of empty arrays.
For now, I have filter in includeContent function on Gallery Model and separated filter on functions that handle API calls /api/content/*.
if($user->user_level < env('USER_LEVEL_EDITOR')){
$children = $children->filter(function($value, $key){
return $value->approved;
});
}
I was looking also at policy functionality, tried to define my own policy 'viewAny', but didn't make it, always returning not authorized not matter what I have put into it.
I'm working on an app where users learn about different patterns of grammar in a language. There are three collections; users and patterns are interrelated by progress, which looks like this:
Create(Collection("progress"), {
data: {
userRef: Ref(Collection("users"), userId),
patternRef: Ref(Collection("patterns"), patternId),
initiallyLearnedAt: Now(),
lastReviewedAt: Now(),
srsLevel: 1
}
})
I've learned how to do some basic Fauna queries, but now I have a somewhat more complex relational one. I want to write an FQL query (and the required indexes) to retrieve all patterns for which a given user doesn't have progress. That is, everything they haven't learned yet. How would I compose such a query?
One clarifying assumption - a progress document is created when a user starts on a particular pattern and means the user has some progress. For example, if there are ten patterns and a user has started two, there will be two documents for that user in progress.
If that assumption is valid, your question is "how can we find the other eight?"
The basic approach is:
Get all available patterns.
Get the patterns a user has worked on.
Select the difference between the two sets.
1. Get all available patterns.
This one is trivial with the built-in Documents function in FQL:
Documents(Collection("patterns"))
2. Get the patterns a user has worked on.
To get all the patterns a user has worked on, you'll want to create an index over the progress collection, as you've figured out. Your terms are what you want to search on, in this case userRef. Your values are the results you want back, in this case patternRef.
This looks like the following:
CreateIndex({
name: "patterns_by_user",
source: Collection("progress"),
terms: [
{ field: ["data", "userRef"] }
],
values: [
{ field: ["data", "patternRef"] }
],
unique: true
})
Then, to get the set of all the patterns a user has some progress against:
Match(
"patterns_by_user",
Ref(Collections("users"), userId)
)
3. Select the difference between the two sets
The FQL function Difference has the following signature:
Difference( source, diff, ... )
This means you'll want the largest set first, in this case all of the documents from the patterns collection.
If you reverse the arguments you'll get an empty set, because there are no documents in the set of patterns the user has worked on that are not also in the set of all patterns.
From the docs, the return value of Difference is:
When source is a Set Reference, a Set Reference of the items in source that are missing from diff.
This means you'll need to Paginate over the difference to get the references themselves.
Paginate(
Difference(
Documents(Collection("patterns")),
Match(
"patterns_by_user",
Ref(Collection("users"), userId)
)
)
)
From there, you can do what you need to do with the references. As an example, to retrieve all of the data for each returned pattern:
Map(
Paginate(
Difference(
Documents(Collection("patterns")),
Match(
"patterns_by_user",
Ref(Collection("users"), userId)
)
)
),
Lambda("patternRef", Get(Var("patternRef")))
)
Consolidated solution
Create the index patterns_by_user as in step two
Query the difference as in step three
I'm building a Zapier app for a platform that have dynamic fields. I have an API that returns the list of fields for one of my resource (for example) :
[
{ name: "First Name", key: "first_name", type: "String" },
{ name: "Civility", key: "civility", type: "Multiple" }
]
I build my action's inputFields based on this API :
create: {
[...],
operation: {
inputFields: [
fetchFields()
],
[...]
},
}
The API returns type that are list of values (i.e : Civility), but to get these values I have to make another API call.
For now, what I have done is in my fetchFields function, each time I encounter a type: "Multiple", I do another API call to get the possible values and set it as choices in my input field. However this is expensive and the page on Zapier takes too much time to display the fields.
I tried to use the z.dehydrate feature provided by Zapier but it doesn't work for input choices.
I can't use a dynamic dropdown here as I can't pass the key of the field possible value I'm looking for. For example, to get back the possible values for Civility, I'll need to pass the civility key to my API.
What are the options in this case?
David here, from the Zapier Platform team.
Thanks for writing in! I think what you're doing is possible, but I'm also not 100% that I understand what you're asking.
You can have multiple API calls in the function (which it sounds like you are). In the end, the function should return an array of Field objects (as descried here).
The key thing you might not be aware of is that subsequent steps have access to a partially-filled bundle.inputData, so you can have a first function that gets field options and allows a user to select something, then a second function that runs and pulls in fields based on that choice.
Otherwise, I think a function that does 2 api calls (one to fetch the field types and one to turn them into Zapier field objects) is the best bet.
If this didn't answer your question, feel free to email partners#zapier.com or join the slack org (linked at the bottom of the readme) and we'll try to solve it there.
A user can create groups
A group had to have created by a user
A user can belong to multiple groups
A group can have multiple users
I have something like the following:
Parse.Cloud.afterSave('Group', function(request) {
var creator = request.user;
var group = request.object;
var wasGroupCreated = group.existed;
if(wasGroupCreated) {
var hasCreatedRelation = creator.relation('hasCreated');
hasCreatedRelation.add(group);
var isAMemberOfRelation = creator.relation('isMemberOf');
isAMemberOfRelation.add(group);
creator.save();
}
});
Now when I GET user/me with include=isMemberOf,hasCreated, it returns me the user object but with the following:
hasCreated: {
__type: "Relation"
className: "Group"
},
isMemberOf: {
__type: "Relation"
className: "Group"
}
I'd like to have the group objects included in say, 'hasCreated' and 'isMemberOf' arrays. How do I pull that using the REST API?
More in general though, am I approaching this the right way? Thoughts? Help is much appreciated!
First off, existed is a function that returns true or false (in your case the wasGroupCreated variable is always going to be a reference to the function and will tis always evaluate to true). It probably isn't going to return what you expect anyway if you were using it correctly.
I think what you want is the isNew() function, though I would test if this works in the Parse.Cloud.afterSave() method as I haven't tried it there.
As for the second part of your question, you seem to want to use your Relations like Arrays. If you used an array instead (and the size was small enough), then you could just include the Group objects in the query (add include parameter set to isMemberOf for example in your REST query).
If you do want to stick to Relations, realise that you'll need to read up more in the documentation. In particular you'll need to query the Group object using a where expression that has a $relatedTo pointer for the user. To query in this manner, you will probably need a members property on the Group that is a relation to Users.
Something like this in your REST query might work (replace the objectId with the right User of course):
where={"$relatedTo":{"object":{"__type":"Pointer","className":"_User","objectId":"8TOXdXf3tz"},"key":"members"}}
I'm designing a new API for my project, and I want to return objects that have nested children as json. For that purpose i've decided to use RABL.
I want the client side to be able to understand whether the object is valid, and if not which fields are missing in order to save it correctly.
The design I thought of should include some fields as optional, under an optional hash, and the rest are required. The required fields should appear right under the root of the json.
So the output I try to describe should look something like this:
{
"name": "John",
"last_name": "Doe",
"optional": {
"address": "Beverly Hills 90210",
"phones":[{"number":"123456","name":"work"}, {"number":"654321","name":"mobile"}]
}
}
The above output example describes the required fields name and last name, and the not required address and phones (which is associated in a belongs_to-has_many relationship to the object). name, last_name and address are User's DB fields.
Playing with RABL I didn't manage so far to create this kind of structure.
Any suggestions? I'm looking for a DRY way to implement this for all my models.
RABL is really good in creating JSON structures on the fly, so I don't see why you couldn't achieve your goal. Did you try testing if a field is set to null-able in the schema, and thus presenting it as optional? It seems a good approach for me. For the nested children, just do the same, but extend the template for the children.
For example, in your father/show.rabl display a custom node :optional with all the properties that can be null.
Then, create a child/show.rabl with the same logic. Finally, go back to father/show.rabl and add a child node, extending the child/show.rabl template. This way you could achieve unlimited levels of "optionals".
Hope it helped you.
In this case I'd use the free form option.
From https://github.com/nesquena/rabl
There can also be odd cases where the root-level of the response
doesn't map directly to any object.
In those cases, object can be assigned to 'false'
and nodes can be constructed free-form.
object false
node(:some_count) { |m| #user.posts.count }
child(#user) { attribute :name }