I have a WCF service that accepts GET calls.
I have a dropdown on my ui that has a list of road exits (exit #1, exit #2, etc.)
When the user selects an exit and mashes a button i call that service with the selected value.
It gets encoded and i can see in fiddler that the end of the url looks like this:
EXIT%20%231
which corresponds to a user selection of EXIT #1
When this param gets to the server, however, all i see in it is the term EXIT.
I think this is related to the hash character having a special meaning in WCF.
Changing that hash tag in my records is not an option. Is there another option to get this to work?
If you have text that is being messed with in transit, you could try base64 encoding before you send it, then decode on the server side.
Related
I am trying delete a database and any associated replicas using LotusScript adminp calls. This is basically the code:
Dim session As New NotesSession
Dim adminp As NotesAdministrationProcess
Set adminp = session.CreateAdministrationProcess("Software_Server")
noteid$ = adminp.DeleteReplicas("Software_Server", "Guys1")
If noteid$ <> "" Then
Call adminp.ApproveReplicaDeletion(noteid$) 'This is where the error is thrown
End If
The first adminp call is successful and returns a noteid, and if I look in the admin requests database can see the document. The next call to ApproveReplicateDeletion results in the error "Invalid Approval Request note"
The documentation doesn't contain any examples for the adminp approve methods. I have a feeling that maybe the second request cannot be called until much later when adminp has processed the first request?
Also related question, do I only have to make this request on a single server and it will remove replicas on all other servers, or do I need to make this request for each server?
So this is a bit more complicated than the help gives any indication of, and might explain why I couldn't find any examples on the internet on how to do it. So the Workflow for using AdminP is as Follows:
Create the request to get the noteID for the initial noteid of the DeleteReplicas request. The returned noteID is not the one that is used to approve the delete replica request. noteid$ = adminp.DeleteReplicas("Software_Server", "Guys1")
This creates a document in the admin.nsf db for the initial request, but the approval docs don't yet exist, for the server to create those, the adminp process must run.
So in the code send a Console command to the Server "tell adminp process now"
Sleep the agent for a few seconds to give adminp time to process the request (this will also fire off any other waiting adminp requests unfortunately)
Now new documents will have been created in the admin database, that are awaiting approval by an admin. These documents contain the noteids that should be sent the approvereplicadeletion
To get them, first lookup the notes document by the noteID in the admin db obtained in step 1
Using that noteid for the document, get the field value ProxyOriginatingRequestUNID from the document.
using this UNID value, perform a getalldocumentsbykey on the view ($AllRequestsbyOriginatingUNID)
if the returned document has a ProxyAction field with a value of "82", this is an approval request document. This documents noteid can be passed to approveReplicaDeletion to have adminp remove the database next time it processes requests.
You can either send a console command to process adminp again, or just wait for the database deletions etc. to happen next time around.
I am building an API about email auth code.
Its process is simple.
input random code (client browser)
request with input code. (client browser)
receive the request (server)
scan the code from DB (server)
there is no code matched (server)
return a response with status code.
There are many status code, (2xx, 4xx, 5xx);
but I don't know which status code number is the most proper for this case.
It depends on the semantics you want to give your request. E.g.:
The API should search for items matching the query and return a list of results, like GET /codes?q=4ba69g. Think a "search page". In this case, an empty result [] is a perfectly valid result; nothing was wrong with the query, it just didn't return any matches. That's a 200 OK, or maybe a 204 No Content if you want to omit the empty response body entirely.
The code is treated like a resource, e.g. GET /codes/4ba69g. In this case a missing code would result in a 404 Not Found.
It's an action you want to perform which may fail, e.g. POST /login. If the user supplied the wrong credentials/code and hence the action cannot complete, that's a client-side error and therefore a 400 Bad Request.
I have a web_custom_request method that needs to handle dynamic item data
web_custom_request("create",
"URL=someurl\create",
"Method=POST",
"Resource=0",
"RecContentType=application/json",
"Referer=someurl",
"Snapshot=t6.inf",
"Mode=HTML",
"EncType=application/json",
"Body={\"actions\":{\"name\":\"value\"}}"
LAST);
To address the dynamic name-value pair parameters that come into play, I had built a bufferthat would hold the Body string. I have used correlation and looping to achieve that. Code towards the end of building this buffer looks like this
lr_param_sprintf("s_buffer", "\\\"actions\\\":{%s}",paramStr);
lr_output_message("Final Actions string is %s", lr_eval_string("{s_buffer}"));
Output for above lr_output_message is
Final Actions string is \"actions\":{\"name\":\"value\"}
I replaced Body parameter in web_custom_request with the buffer I had built
web_custom_request("create",
"URL=someurl\create",
"Method=POST",
"Resource=0",
"RecContentType=application/json",
"Referer=someurl",
"Snapshot=t6.inf",
"Mode=HTML",
"EncType=application/json",
"Body={s_buffer}"
LAST);
I receive a HTTP Status-Code=400 (Bad Request) indicating the format of web_custom_request is wrong. I would highly appreciate if someone could help me with the Body parameter so that the web_custom_request embraces it like the way it should.
Record it three times. First two with the same login session. The third with another one. You likely have something that is going to change based upon data which is not being handled in the body appropriately.
(defn do-request [url query-map]
"Executes HTTP client"
(client/post url {:form-params query-map}))
(do-request "http://foo.com/api" {:a [val1 val2 val3]})
I need to send multiple values for a single key. The API docs state that I need to pass them like foo.com/api?a=val1&a=val2&a=val3 but when I pass that through clj-http as above it only does foo.com/api?a=val3.
(For more detail, I'm using Authorize.Net's version 3.1 CSV-based API and trying to add x_line_item which is defined to work as above.)
Actually #dAni was correct. Passing a vector as above works correctly. The debugging endpoint output from Authorize.Net only shows the last entry, but if you set the client email to one you control you will see the line items you send listed.
I build a simple API for a bookmark manager, where the URL of record should only be stored once. Record 001 with www.example.com already exists beside record 002 with www.stuff.com.
If I update record 002 with the url www.example.com, should I ignore the complete request and send back an error message or is it better to update all valid parts and just send an errror message, that says, that the url/bookmark already exists?
With a PUT, the expectation is that the entire operation will succeed or fail:
The PUT method requests that the state of the target resource be
created or replaced with the state defined by the representation
enclosed in the request message payload. A successful PUT of a given
representation would suggest that a subsequent GET on that same
target resource will result in an equivalent representation being
sent in a 200 (OK) response.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7231#section-4.3.4
You should send an error for an invalid PUT (since the URL already exists and cannot be in two records at the same time) and not apply any of the other updates.
For partial updates you might consider a PATCH, but in this case I don't think you would go this direction since:
If the entire patch document
cannot be successfully applied, then the server MUST NOT apply any of
the changes.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5789