Like netconf, netscaler nitro API have transaction support ?
SIngle API can be executed and seems immediately succeed or fail. If succeed, adds configs to running config and saved config.
NITRO APIs are synchronous. It will return after success or fail only.
If you want to do multiple operation in single NITRO call, use macroapi. You can have multiple operations payload.
http://<NSIP>/nitro/v1/config/macroapi
Related
There does not appear to be any method in the Python client API for Google's storage transfer service that checks the status of an ongoing transfer operation. There is get_transfer_job, which shows the status of a transfer job itself (and gives the latest operation name). But I can't find any way of getting the status of an actual operation, which is critical.
I know other languages' client APIs (including at least Go and node.js) have this functionality. It may be possible to use a naked REST API request, but we're running into authentication issues. Is there any other way that I'm missing? Any way to call the TransferOperation type directly (such as client.TransferOperation(<transfer_operation_name>)?
There is method available for the same which you can use in the following manner.
GetTransferJobRequest(mapping=None, *, ignore_unknown_fields=False, **kwargs)
Reference Link - Class GetTransferJobRequest
I'm using Electron, which is based on Chromium, to create an offline desktop application.
The application uses a remote site, and we are using a service worker to offline parts of the site. Everything is working great, except for a certain situation that I call the "airplane wifi situation".
Using Charles, I have restricted download bandwidth to 100bytes/s. The connection is sent through webview.loadURL which eventually calls LoadURLWithParams in Chromium. The problem is that it does not fail and then activate the service worker, like no connection at all would. Once the request is sent, it waits forever for the response.
My question is, how do I timeout the request after a certain amount of time and load everything from the service worker as if the user was truly offline?
An alternative to writing this yourself is to use the sw-toolbox library, which provides routing and runtime caching strategies for service workers, along with some built in options for helping with these sorts of advanced use cases. In particular, you'd want to use the networkTimeoutSeconds parameter to configure the amount of time to wait for a response from the network before you fall back to a previously cached response.
You can use it like the following:
toolbox.router.get(
new RegExp('my-api\\.com'),
toolbox.networkFirst, {
networkTimeoutSeconds: 10
}
);
That would configure a route that matched GET requests with URLs containing my-api.com, and applied a network-first strategy that will automatically fall back to the previously cached response after 10 seconds.
I have a Rails API which can handle requests from the clients. Clients use that API to perform analysis of their data. Client POSTs the data to API, API checks if that data have been analysed before. If so API just respond with analysis result. If the data haven't been analyzed before API:
Tells client that analysis started.
Establishes the connection with analyzing microservice.
Performs asynchronous (or deferred or i don't know) request to the analyzing microservice and waiting for response. The analysis takes much time so neither the API nor the microservice should be blocked while doing it.
When the response from analyzing microservice is returned API hands it to the client.
The main issue for me is to set up things such way that client could receive somehow the message "Your data had been sent to analysis" right after he performed the request. And then when analysis will be done client could receive its result.
The question is what approach I have to use in that case? Async responses, deferred responses, something else? And what known solutions could help me with that? Any gems?
I'm new to that stuff so I'm really sorry if I ask dumb questions.
If using HTTP you can only have one response to every request. To send multiple responses, i.e. "work in progress", then later the "results", you would need to use a different protocol, e.g. web sockets.
Since HTTP is so very common I'd stick with that in combination with background jobs. There are a couple of options which spring to mind.
Polling: The API kicks off a background jobs (to call the microservice) and responds to the client with a URL which the client can ping periodically for the result. The URL would respond with some kind of "work in progress" status until the result is actually ready). The URL would need to include some kind of id so the API can lookup the background job.
The API would potentially have two URLS; /api/jobs/new and /api/jobs/<ID>. They would, in Rails, map to a controller new and show action.
Webhooks: Have the client include a URL of its own in the request. Once the result is available have the background job hit the given URL with the result.
Either way, if using HTTP, you will not be able to handle the whole thing within a request/response, you will have to use some kind of background processing (so request to the microservice happens in a different process). You could look at Sidekiq, for example.
Here is an example for polling:
URL: example.com/api/jobs/new
web app receives client request
generates a unique id for the request, SecureRandom.uuid.
starts a background job (Sidekiq) passing in the uuid and any other parameters needed
respond with URL such as example.com/api/jobs/
--
background job
sends request to microservice API and waits for response
saves result to database with uuid
--
URL: example.com/api/jobs/UUID
look in database for UUID, if not found respond that job is "in progress". If found return result found in database.
Depending on what kind of API you use. I assume your clients interact via HTTP.
If you want to build an asynchronous API over HTTP the first thing that you should do: accept the request, create a job, handle it in the background and immediately return.
For the client to get the response you have to 2 options:
Implement a status endpoint where clients can periodically poll the status of the job
Implement a callback via webhooks. So the client has to provide a URL which you then call after you're done.
A good start for background processing is the sidekiq gem or more general ActiveJob that ships with Rails.
I'm writing a library which I will provide for 3rd parties to run a service worker on their site. It needs to intercept all network requests but I want to allow them to build their own service worker if they like.
Can I have both service workers intercept the same fetches and provide some kind of priority/ordering between them? Alternatively is there some other pattern I should be using?
Thanks
No, you can not. Only one service worker per scope is allowed to be registered so the latest kick the previous one out unless the scope is more specific, in this case, the request is attended by the most specific only.
Nevertheless, you can attach multiple fetch handlers and they all will process the request so maybe you can write your functionality in a separated script and let the user's service worker to include your file via importScripts().
The first handler calling event.respondWith() synchronously (actually, you can not call this method asynchronously) wins and the remaining handlers trying to call will throw.
Prioritization and coordination requires middleware. You can check ServiceWorkerWare or sw-toolbox.
I'm building an API using Rails where requests come in and they need to be executed by a cluster of workers running on a different server (these workers call remote APIs and parse the data, etc...). I'm going to be using Sidekiq or Resque to handle the queueing/processing of that.
My issue is the client needs to wait while this is happening and the controller needs to return the response to the client once it's complete. How would I handle this in the controller? We're using a redis backend, so I was thinking something along the lines of subscribing to a pub/sub channel and waiting for the worker to publish a status message. The controller would wait for a set time period and then return a 'check back later' response to the client if it doesn't receive a message in time. What would be the best way to implement that, or is there a better solution?
Do not make your clients wait! There are a lot of issues if you make the controller block for a long running job:
Other programs may assume the request timed out (proxies, browsers, scripts, etc.)
It makes your API endpoints become a source for denial of service
It requires you to put more engineering work into web servers (since a rails process can't handle another web request while it's handling the blocking call)
Part of the reason of using Sidekiq or Resque is the avoid controllers that do heavily lifting during the http request.
Instead, background jobs should report their status to the database. Then web server should query and return to the client the latest status from the database.
If clients need more immediate feedback, you can:
make clients constantly poll
post request to the client (if the API consumer is another webserver)
use another protocol mechanism (eg - websockets).