Background:
Let's have a WebAssembly (wasm) originating from .net code.
This wasm uses HttpClient and HttpClientHandler to access a backend API at https://api.uri.
The actual backend API location might change in time (like https://api.uri/version-5), but there is still this fixed endpoint, which provides redirection (3xx response) to the current location (which is in the same domain).
The API allows CORS, meaning it sends e.g. Access-Control-Allow-Origin: * headers in the responses.
In the normal (non-wasm) world, one just:
Plainly GETs the https://api.uri with no additional headers (CORS safe).
Retrieve the Location: header (containing e.g. https://api.uri/version-5) from the 3xx response as the final URI.
GETs/POSTs the final URI with additional headers (as needed, e.g. custom, auth, etc.).
Note: In ideal world, the redirection is handled transparently and the first two steps can just be omitted.
Although in the wasm world:
You are not allowed to (let the wasm/browser) send the OPTIONS pre-flight requests to a redirecting endpoint (https://api.uri).
You can't send any non-cors headers, when wanting to prevent pre-flight requests (reason for two stages, plain and full, described above).
You can't see the Location: header value (like https://api.uri/version-5) when trying the manual redirection (HttpClientHandler.AllowAutoRedirect = false), because the response is just artificially crafted with HTTP status code of 0 and ReasonPhrase == "opaqueredirect" - adoption to browser's Fetch API. What a nonsense! #1...
You can't see the auto-followed Location: header value in response.RequestMessage?.RequestUri, when trying the (default) automatic redirection (HttpClientHandler.AllowAutoRedirect = true), because there is still the original URI (https://api.uri) instead of the very expected auto-followed one (https://api.uri/version-5). What a nonsense! #2...
You can't send the full blown request with all the headers and rely on the automatic redirection, because it would trigger pre-flight, which is sill not allowed on redirecting endpoint.
So, the obvious question is:
Is there ANY way, how to handle such simple scenario from the Web Assembly?
(and not crash on CORS)
GET https://api.uri => 3xx, Location: https://api.uri/version-5
GET https://api.uri/version-5, Authorization: Basic BlaBlaBase64= ; Custom: Cool-Value => 200
Note: All this has been discovered within the Uno Platform wasm head, but I believe it applies for any .net wasm.
Note: I also guess "disabled" CORS (on the request side, via Sec-Fetch-Mode: no-cors) wouldn't help either, as then such request is not allowed to have additional headers/methods, right?
Related
Mod note: This question is about why XMLHttpRequest/fetch/etc. on the browser are subject to the Same Access Policy restrictions (you get errors mentioning CORB or CORS) while Postman is not. This question is not about how to fix a "No 'Access-Control-Allow-Origin'..." error. It's about why they happen.
Please stop posting:
CORS configurations for every language/framework under the sun. Instead find your relevant language/framework's question.
3rd party services that allow a request to circumvent CORS
Command line options for turning off CORS for various browsers
I am trying to do authorization using JavaScript by connecting to the RESTful API built-in Flask. However, when I make the request, I get the following error:
XMLHttpRequest cannot load http://myApiUrl/login.
No 'Access-Control-Allow-Origin' header is present on the requested resource.
Origin 'null' is therefore not allowed access.
I know that the API or remote resource must set the header, but why did it work when I made the request via the Chrome extension Postman?
This is the request code:
$.ajax({
type: 'POST',
dataType: 'text',
url: api,
username: 'user',
password: 'pass',
crossDomain: true,
xhrFields: {
withCredentials: true,
},
})
.done(function (data) {
console.log('done');
})
.fail(function (xhr, textStatus, errorThrown) {
alert(xhr.responseText);
alert(textStatus);
});
If I understood it right you are doing an XMLHttpRequest to a different domain than your page is on. So the browser is blocking it as it usually allows a request in the same origin for security reasons. You need to do something different when you want to do a cross-domain request.
When you are using Postman they are not restricted by this policy. Quoted from Cross-Origin XMLHttpRequest:
Regular web pages can use the XMLHttpRequest object to send and receive data from remote servers, but they're limited by the same origin policy. Extensions aren't so limited. An extension can talk to remote servers outside of its origin, as long as it first requests cross-origin permissions.
WARNING: Using Access-Control-Allow-Origin: * can make your API/website vulnerable to cross-site request forgery (CSRF) attacks. Make certain you understand the risks before using this code.
It's very simple to solve if you are using PHP. Just add the following script in the beginning of your PHP page which handles the request:
<?php header('Access-Control-Allow-Origin: *'); ?>
If you are using Node-red you have to allow CORS in the node-red/settings.js file by un-commenting the following lines:
// The following property can be used to configure cross-origin resource sharing
// in the HTTP nodes.
// See https://github.com/troygoode/node-cors#configuration-options for
// details on its contents. The following is a basic permissive set of options:
httpNodeCors: {
origin: "*",
methods: "GET,PUT,POST,DELETE"
},
If you are using Flask same as the question; you have first to install flask-cors
pip install -U flask-cors
Then include the Flask cors package in your application.
from flask_cors import CORS
A simple application will look like:
from flask import Flask
from flask_cors import CORS
app = Flask(__name__)
CORS(app)
#app.route("/")
def helloWorld():
return "Hello, cross-origin-world!"
For more details, you can check the Flask documentation.
Because
$.ajax({type: "POST" - calls OPTIONS
$.post( - calls POST
Both are different. Postman calls "POST" properly, but when we call it, it will be "OPTIONS".
For C# web services - Web API
Please add the following code in your web.config file under the <system.webServer> tag. This will work:
<httpProtocol>
<customHeaders>
<add name="Access-Control-Allow-Origin" value="*" />
</customHeaders>
</httpProtocol>
Please make sure you are not doing any mistake in the Ajax call.
jQuery
$.ajax({
url: 'http://mysite.microsoft.sample.xyz.com/api/mycall',
headers: {
'Content-Type': 'application/x-www-form-urlencoded'
},
type: "POST", /* or type:"GET" or type:"PUT" */
dataType: "json",
data: {
},
success: function (result) {
console.log(result);
},
error: function () {
console.log("error");
}
});
Note: If you are looking for downloading content from a third-party website then this will not help you. You can try the following code, but not JavaScript.
System.Net.WebClient wc = new System.Net.WebClient();
string str = wc.DownloadString("http://mysite.microsoft.sample.xyz.com/api/mycall");
Deep
In the below investigation as API, I use http://example.com instead of http://myApiUrl/login from your question, because this first one working. I assume that your page is on http://my-site.local:8088.
NOTE: The API and your page have different domains!
The reason why you see different results is that Postman:
set header Host=example.com (your API)
NOT set header Origin
Postman actually not use your website url at all (you only type your API address into Postman) - he only send request to API, so he assume that website has same address as API (browser not assume this)
This is similar to browsers' way of sending requests when the site and API has the same domain (browsers also set the header item Referer=http://my-site.local:8088, however I don't see it in Postman). When Origin header is not set, usually servers allow such requests by default.
This is the standard way how Postman sends requests. But a browser sends requests differently when your site and API have different domains, and then CORS occurs and the browser automatically:
sets header Host=example.com (yours as API)
sets header Origin=http://my-site.local:8088 (your site)
(The header Referer has the same value as Origin). And now in Chrome's Console & Networks tab you will see:
When you have Host != Origin this is CORS, and when the server detects such a request, it usually blocks it by default.
Origin=null is set when you open HTML content from a local directory, and it sends a request. The same situation is when you send a request inside an <iframe>, like in the below snippet (but here the Host header is not set at all) - in general, everywhere the HTML specification says opaque origin, you can translate that to Origin=null. More information about this you can find here.
fetch('http://example.com/api', {method: 'POST'});
Look on chrome-console > network tab
If you do not use a simple CORS request, usually the browser automatically also sends an OPTIONS request before sending the main request - more information is here. The snippet below shows it:
fetch('http://example.com/api', {
method: 'POST',
headers: { 'Content-Type': 'application/json'}
});
Look in chrome-console -> network tab to 'api' request.
This is the OPTIONS request (the server does not allow sending a POST request)
You can change the configuration of your server to allow CORS requests.
Here is an example configuration which turns on CORS on nginx (nginx.conf file) - be very careful with setting always/"$http_origin" for nginx and "*" for Apache - this will unblock CORS from any domain (in production instead of stars use your concrete page adres which consume your api)
location ~ ^/index\.php(/|$) {
...
add_header 'Access-Control-Allow-Origin' "$http_origin" always;
add_header 'Access-Control-Allow-Credentials' 'true' always;
if ($request_method = OPTIONS) {
add_header 'Access-Control-Allow-Origin' "$http_origin"; # DO NOT remove THIS LINES (doubled with outside 'if' above)
add_header 'Access-Control-Allow-Credentials' 'true';
add_header 'Access-Control-Max-Age' 1728000; # cache preflight value for 20 days
add_header 'Access-Control-Allow-Methods' 'GET, POST, OPTIONS';
add_header 'Access-Control-Allow-Headers' 'My-First-Header,My-Second-Header,Authorization,Content-Type,Accept,Origin';
add_header 'Content-Length' 0;
add_header 'Content-Type' 'text/plain charset=UTF-8';
return 204;
}
}
Here is an example configuration which turns on CORS on Apache (.htaccess file)
# ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# | Cross-domain Ajax requests |
# ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Enable cross-origin Ajax requests.
# http://code.google.com/p/html5security/wiki/CrossOriginRequestSecurity
# http://enable-cors.org/
# <IfModule mod_headers.c>
# Header set Access-Control-Allow-Origin "*"
# </IfModule>
# Header set Header set Access-Control-Allow-Origin "*"
# Header always set Access-Control-Allow-Credentials "true"
Access-Control-Allow-Origin "http://your-page.com:80"
Header always set Access-Control-Allow-Methods "POST, GET, OPTIONS, DELETE, PUT"
Header always set Access-Control-Allow-Headers "My-First-Header,My-Second-Header,Authorization, content-type, csrf-token"
Applying a CORS restriction is a security feature defined by a server and implemented by a browser.
The browser looks at the CORS policy of the server and respects it.
However, the Postman tool does not bother about the CORS policy of the server.
That is why the CORS error appears in the browser, but not in Postman.
The error you get is due to the CORS standard, which sets some restrictions on how JavaScript can perform ajax requests.
The CORS standard is a client-side standard, implemented in the browser. So it is the browser which prevent the call from completing and generates the error message - not the server.
Postman does not implement the CORS restrictions, which is why you don't see the same error when making the same call from Postman.
Why doesn't Postman implement CORS? CORS defines the restrictions relative to the origin (URL domain) of the page which initiates the request. But in Postman the requests doesn't originate from a page with an URL so CORS does not apply.
Solution & Issue Origins
You are making a XMLHttpRequest to different domains, example:
Domain one: some-domain.com
Domain Two: some-different-domain.com
This difference in domain names triggers CORS (Cross-Origin Resource Sharing) policy called SOP (Same-Origin Policy) that enforces the use of same domains (hence Origin) in Ajax, XMLHttpRequest and other HTTP requests.
Why did it work when I made the request via the Chrome extension
Postman?
A client (most Browsers and Development Tools) has a choice to enforce the Same-Origin Policy.
Most browsers enforce the policy of Same-Origin Policy to prevent issues related to CSRF (Cross-Site Request Forgery) attack.
Postman as a development tool chooses not to enforce SOP while some browsers enforce, this is why you can send requests via Postman that you cannot send with XMLHttpRequest via JS using the browser.
For browser testing purposes:
Windows - Run:
chrome.exe --user-data-dir="C://Chrome dev session" --disable-web-security
The command above will disable chrome web security. So for example if you work on a local project and encounter CORS policy issue when trying to make a request, you can skip this type of error with the above command. Basically it will open a new chrome session.
You might also get this error if your gateway timeout is too short and the resource you are accessing takes longer to process than the timeout. This may be the case for complex database queries etc. Thus, the above error code can be disguishing this problem. Just check if the error code is 504 instead of 404 as in Kamil's answer or something else. If it is 504, then increasing the gateway timeout might fix the problem.
In my case the CORS error could be removed by disabling the same origin policy (CORS) in the Internet Explorer browser, see How to disable same origin policy Internet Explorer. After doing this, it was a pure 504 error in the log.
To resolve this issue, write this line of code in your doGet() or doPost() function whichever you are using in backend
response.setHeader("Access-Control-Allow-Origin", "*");
Instead of "*" you can type in the website or API URL endpoint which is accessing the website else it will be public.
Your IP address is not whitelisted, so you are getting this error.
Ask the backend staff to whitelist your IP address for the service you are accessing.
Access-Control-Allow-Headers
For me I got this issue for different reason, the remote domain was added to origins the deployed app works perfectly except one end point I got this issue:
Origin https://mai-frontend.vercel.app is not allowed by Access-Control-Allow-Origin. Status code: 500
and
Fetch API cannot load https://sciigo.herokuapp.com/recommendations/recommendationsByUser/8f1bb29e-8ce6-4df2-b138-ffe53650dbab due to access control checks.
I discovered that my Heroku database table does not contains all the columns of my local table after updating Heroku database table everything worked well.
It works for me by applying this middleware in globally:
<?php
namespace App\Http\Middleware;
use Closure;
class Cors {
public function handle($request, Closure $next) {
return $next($request)
->header('Access-Control-Allow-Origin', '*')
->header('Access-Control-Allow-Methods', 'GET, POST, PUT, DELETE, OPTIONS')
->header('Access-Control-Allow-Headers', "Accept,authorization,Authorization, Content-Type");
}
}
Please bare with me for a question for which it's nearly impossible to create a reproducible example.
I have an API setup with FastAPI using Docker, Serverless and deployed on AWS API Gateway. All routes discussed are protected with an api-key that is passed into the header (x-api-key).
I'm trying to accomplish a simple redirect from one route to another using fastapi.responses.RedirectResponse. The redirect works perfectly fine locally (though, this is without api-key), and both routes work perfectly fine when deployed on AWS and connected to directly, but something is blocking the redirect from route one (abc/item) to route two (xyz/item) when I deploy to AWS. I'm not sure what could be the issue, because the logs in CloudWatch aren't giving me much to work with.
To illustrate my issue let's say we have route abc/item that looks like this:
#router.get("/abc/item")
async def get_item(item_id: int, request: Request, db: Session = Depends(get_db)):
if False:
redirect_url = f"/xyz/item?item_id={item_id}"
logging.info(f"Redirecting to {redirect_url}")
return RedirectResponse(redirect_url, headers=request.headers)
else:
execution = db.execute(text(items_query))
return convert_to_json(execution)
So, we check if some value is True/False and if it's False we redirect from abc/item to xyz/item using RedirectResponse(). We pass the redirect_url, which is just the xyz/item route including query parameters and we pass request.headers (as suggested here and here), because I figured we need to pass along the x-api-key to the new route. In the second route we again try a query in a different table (other_items) and return some value.
I have also tried passing status_code=status.HTTP_303_SEE_OTHER and status_code=status.HTTP_307_TEMPORARY_REDIRECT to RedirectResponse() as suggested by some tangentially related questions I found on StackOverflow and the FastAPI discussions, but that didn't help either.
#router.get("/xyz/item")
async def get_item(item_id: int, db: Session = Depends(get_db)):
execution = db.execute(text(other_items_query))
return convert_to_json(execution)
Like I said, when deployed I can successfully connect directly to both abc/item and get a return value if True and I can also connect to xyz/item directly and get a correct value from that, but when I pass a value to abc/item that is False (and thus it should redirect) I get {"message": "Forbidden"}.
In case it can be of any help, I try debugging this using a "curl" tool, and the headers I get returned give the following info:
Content-Type: application/json
Content-Length: 23
Connection: keep-alive
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2022 08:43:06 GMT
x-amzn-RequestId: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
x-amzn-ErrorType: ForbiddenException
x-amz-apigw-id: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X-Cache: Error from cloudfront
Via: 1.1 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.cloudfront.net (CloudFront)
X-Amz-Cf-Pop: XXXXX
X-Amz-Cf-Id: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
So, this is hinting at a CloudFront error. Unfortunately I don't see anything slightly hinting at this API when I look into my CloudFront dashboard on AWS, there literally is nothing there (I do have permissions to view the contents though...)
The API logs in CloudWatch look like this:
2022-07-27T03:43:06.495-05:00 Redirecting to /xyz/item?item_id=1234...
2022-07-27T03:43:06.495-05:00 [INFO] 2022-07-27T08:43:06.495Z Redirecting to /xyz/item?item_id=1234...
2022-07-27T03:43:06.496-05:00 2022-07-27 08:43:06,496 INFO sqlalchemy.engine.Engine ROLLBACK
2022-07-27T03:43:06.496-05:00 [INFO] 2022-07-27T08:43:06.496Z ROLLBACK
2022-07-27T03:43:06.499-05:00 END RequestId: 6f449762-6a60189e4314
2022-07-27T03:43:06.499-05:00 REPORT RequestId: 6f449762-6a60189e4314 Duration: 85.62 ms Billed Duration: 86 ms Memory Size: 256 MB Max Memory Used: 204 MB
I have been wondering if my issue could be related to something I need to add to somewhere in my serverless.yml, perhaps in the functions: part. That currently looks like this for these two routes:
events:
- http:
path: abc/item
method: get
cors: true
private: true
request:
parameters:
querystrings:
item_id: true
- http:
path: xyz/item
method: get
cors: true
private: true
request:
parameters:
querystrings:
item_id: true
Finally, it's probably good to note that I have added custom middleware to FastAPI to handle the two different database connections I need for connecting to other_items and items tables, though I'm not sure how relevant this is, considering this functions fine when redirecting locally. For this I implemented the solution found here. This custom middleware is the reason for the redirect in the first place (we change connection URI based on route with that middleware), so I figured it's good to share this bit of info as well.
Thanks!
As noted here and here, it is mpossible to redirect to a page with custom headers set. A redirection in the HTTP protocol doesn't support adding any headers to the target location. It is basically just a header in itself and only allows for a URL (a redirect response though could also include body content, if needed—see this answer). When you add the authorization header to the RedirectResponse, you only send that header back to the client.
A suggested here, you could use the set-cookie HTTP response header:
The Set-Cookie HTTP response header is used to send a cookie from the
server to the user agent (client), so that the user agent can send it back to
the server later.
In FastAPI—documentation can be found here and here—this can be done as follows:
from fastapi import Request
from fastapi.responses import RedirectResponse
#app.get("/abc/item")
def get_item(request: Request):
redirect_url = request.url_for('your_endpoints_function_name') #e.g., 'get_item'
response = RedirectResponse(redirect_url)
response.set_cookie(key="fakesession", value="fake-cookie-session-value", httponly=True)
return response
Inside the other endpoint, where you are redirecting the user to, you can extract that cookie to authenticate the user. The cookie can be found in request.cookies—which should return, for example, {'fakesession': 'fake-cookie-session-value-MANUAL'}—and you retrieve it using request.cookies.get('fakesession').
On a different note, request.url_for() function accepts only path parameters, not query parameters (such as item_id in your /abc/item and /xyz/item endpoints). Thus, you can either create the URL in the way you already do, or use the CustomURLProcessor suggested here, here and here, which allows you to pass both path and query parameters.
If the redirection takes place from one domain to another (e.g., from abc.com to xyz.com), please have a look at this answer.
I have a grails 2.2.4 application. I wanted to enable CORS
So I installed cors plugin by having the following line in build config.
plugins {
runtime ':cors:1.1.8'
}
Then in the config.groovy
cors.headers = ['Access-Control-Allow-Origin': '*']
But after this when I run the application, CORS in not enabled. So I debugged the CORS plugin. The issue seems to be in CorsFilter class in the following method
private boolean checkOrigin(HttpServletRequest req, HttpServletResponse resp) {
String origin = req.getHeader("Origin");
if (origin == null) {
//no origin; per W3C spec, terminate further processing for both preflight and actual requests
return false;
}
The origin parameter in the above line is always null as the request does not have the parameter 'Origin'. Is there something i'm doing wrong? I'm not looking for the answer which says add a manual header with the name "Origin" since that is not exactly a proper fix
I'm quite new to CORS so appriciate the help.
In addition to Access-Control-Allow-Origin, and in addition to setting the Origin header on request, you probably need to specify these response headers as well:
Access-Control-Allow-Headers: accept
Access-Control-Allow-Headers: origin
Access-Control-Allow-Headers: content-type
Access-Control-Allow-Method: GET
Access-Control-Allow-Method: POST
Also make sure you respond to HTTP OPTIONS requests with these headers and a blank 200 OK response.
For now, let's assume that RestClient is sending the Origin header properly. It may still be getting stripped by your application. You can prevent this using the Access-Control-Allow-Headers: Origin header.
Most of the problems I have had with my web services is that the right headers are being sent, but they are stripped from the message by my web server. So I tend to adopt a shotgun approach of "allow everything" and then one by one remove what I don't need. My allow-headers header usually is pretty long and I end up having to include stuff like Content-Type, X-Requested-With and other junk before my requests will finally go through.
I further recommend that you test using something besides RestClient, if only as a sanity check. I use Postman, a free Chrome app, for all my messaging tests. It looks to me like the problem is with RestClient not sending the proper Origin header.
In Delphi, I'm using Indy's TIdHTTPWebBrokerBridge coupled with TIdHTTP to send/receive data via HTTP. On the Server, I don't have any fancy handling, I always just respond with a simple content stream. If there's any issues, I only return information about that issue in the response content (such as authentication failed, invalid request, etc.). So, on the client side, can I assume that every successful request I make to this server will always have a response code of 200 (OK)?
I'm wondering because on the client, the requests are wrapped inside functions which return just a boolean for the success of the request.
Inside this function:
IdHTTP.Get(SomeURL, AStream);
Result:= IdHTTP.ResponseCode = 200;
This function handles any and every request which could possibly fetch data. If there were any issues in the request, This function should return False. In my scenario, since I always return some sort of content on the server, would the client always receive a response code of 200 in this function?
I guess the real question is, if I always return some sort of content and handle all exceptions on the server, then will the server always return status code of 200 to each request?
"Does every successful HTTP request always return status code 200?"
See w3.org: HTTP/1.1 Status Code Definitions (RFC 2616)
The answer is No. All 2xx are considered successful.
That may depend on the HTTP method used.
Should your web-server application always return 200 upon success? That may as well depend on the request method and the signal it intends for the client . e.g.
for PUT method (emphasis is mine):
If an existing resource is modified, either the 200 (OK) or 204 (No
Content) response codes SHOULD be sent to indicate successful
completion of the request.
for POST method:
The action performed by the POST method might not result in a resource
that can be identified by a URI. In this case, either 200 (OK) or 204
(No Content) is the appropriate response status, depending on whether
or not the response includes an entity that describes the result.
If a resource has been created on the origin server, the response
SHOULD be 201 (Created) and contain an entity which describes the
status of the request and refers to the new resource, and a Location
header (see section 14.30). Responses to this method are not
cacheable, unless the response includes appropriate Cache-Control or
Expires header fields. However, the 303 (See Other) response can be
used to direct the user agent to retrieve a cacheable resource.
As you can learn from the RCF, every method SHOULD have it's own success status codes, depending on the implementation.
Your other question:
"can I assume that every successful request I make to this server will always have a response code of 200 (OK)?"
You can always expect Status code 200, if your web server always responds with Status 200. Your web server application controls what response it returns to the client.
That said, Status code 200 is the Standard response for successful HTTP requests (The actual response will depend on the request method used), and in the real world of web servers, SHOULD be set as default upon successful request, unless told otherwise (As explained in Remy's answer).
To answer your specific question:
can I assume that every successful request I make to this server will always have a response code of 200 (OK)?
The answer is Yes, because TIdHTTPWebBrokerBridge wraps TIdHTTPServer, which always sets the default response code to 200 for every request, unless you overwrite it with a different value yourself, or have your server do something that implicitly replies with a different response code (like Redirect() which uses 302, or SmartServeFile() which uses 304), or encounter an error that causes TIdHTTPServer to assign a 4xx or 5xx error response code.
However, in general, what others have told you is true. On the client side, you should handle any possible HTTP success response code, not just 200 by itself. Don't make any assumptions about the server implementation.
In fact, TIdHTTP already handles that for you. If TIdHTTP encounters a response code that it considers to be an error code, it will raise an EIdHTTPProtocolException exception into your code. So if you don't get an exception, assume the response is successful. You don't need to check the response code manually.
If there is a particular response code that normally raises an exception but you do not want it to, you can specify that value in the optional AIgnoreReplies parameter of TIdHTTP.Get() or TIdHTTP.DoRequest(). Or, if you are are using an up-to-date Indy 10 SVN revision, a new hoNoProtocolErrorException flag was recently added to the TIdHTTP.HTTPOptions property so the EIdHTTPProtocolException exception is not raised for any response code.
Successful resposes are 2xx List_of_HTTP_status_codes
i did the following. Process straight all 200`s and LOG exceptions. worked, not a single non 200 - except unauthorized and timeouts (password or sometimes unavaliable server). but many/all responses will be considered for a wide range of mainstream apps.
while (iRedo < 3) do begin
s := Self.HTTPComponent.Get( sUrl );
if self.HTTPComponent.ResponseCode = 200 then begin
break;
end;
// IDEIA - log what happend if not 200
logWhatHappend( s, HTTPComponent ); // then log content, headers, etc
inc( iRedo ); sleep( 5 );
end;
I'm implementing a REST API using ASP.NET MVC, and a little stumbling block has come up in the form of the Expect: 100-continue request header for requests with a post body.
RFC 2616 states that:
Upon receiving a request which
includes an Expect request-header
field with the "100-continue" expectation, an origin server MUST
either respond with 100 (Continue) status and continue to read
from the input stream, or respond with a final status code. The
origin server MUST NOT wait for the request body before sending
the 100 (Continue) response. If it responds with a final status
code, it MAY close the transport connection or it MAY continue
to read and discard the rest of the request. It MUST NOT
perform the requested method if it returns a final status code.
This sounds to me like I need to make two responses to the request, i.e. it needs to immediately send a HTTP 100 Continue response, and then continue reading from the original request stream (i.e. HttpContext.Request.InputStream) without ending the request, and then finally sending the resultant status code (for the sake of argument, lets say it's a 204 No Content result).
So, questions are:
Am I reading the specification right, that I need to make two responses to a request?
How can this be done in ASP.NET MVC?
w.r.t. (2) I have tried using the following code before proceeding to read the input stream...
HttpContext.Response.StatusCode = 100;
HttpContext.Response.Flush();
HttpContext.Response.Clear();
...but when I try to set the final 204 status code I get the error:
System.Web.HttpException: Server cannot set status after HTTP headers have been sent.
The .NET framework by default always sends the expect: 100-continue header for every HTTP 1.1 post. This behavior can be programmatically controlled per request via the System.Net.ServicePoint.Expect100Continue property like so:
HttpWebRequest httpReq = GetHttpWebRequestForPost();
httpReq.ServicePoint.Expect100Continue = false;
It can also be globally controlled programmatically:
System.Net.ServicePointManager.Expect100Continue = false;
...or globally through configuration:
<system.net>
<settings>
<servicePointManager expect100Continue="false"/>
</settings>
</system.net>
Thank you Lance Olson and Phil Haack for this info.
100-continue should be handled by IIS. Is there a reason why you want to do this explicitly?
IIS handles the 100.
That said, no it's not two responses. In HTTP, when the Expect: 100-continue comes in as part of the message headers, the client should be waiting until it receives the response before sending the content.
Because of the way asp.net is architected, you have little control over the output stream. Any data that gets written to the stream is automatically put in a 200 response with chunked encoding whenever you flush, be it that you're in buffered mode or not.
Sadly all this stuff is hidden away in internal methods all over the place, and the result is that if you rely on asp.net, as does MVC, you're pretty much unable to bypass it.
Wait till you try and access the input stream in a non-buffered way. A whole load of pain.
Seb