I use F5 and I have an issue.
I want to build an Irule that check the following scenario
url=="domain.com" and Content-Length(of the request) > 400
then
alert(response)
Is it possible to create this Irule?
I'm not sure what your alert action desire is (simulated here with the # take action block), but the rule is pretty simple:
when HTTP_REQUEST {
if { ([HTTP::host] eq "domain.com") and ([HTTP::header Content-Length] > 400) } {
# take action
}
}
Do you possibly mean you want to use alertd to generate an email or SNMP trap? If so, then as long as alertd is looking for the error you put in the log, that would take the alert action.
Related
I have a ruby on Rails 4 app.
A user loads a page (called deal_page) then he clicks on a button which loads a Rails UJS modal message.
If he is online WHEN he clicks the button, I show a message using javascript offline status recognition (inside the Rails UJS ajax event).
on('ajax:error',function(event,xhr, status, error){
var isOnLine = navigator.onLine;
event.preventDefault();
if (isOnLine) {
//do stuff }
else {
// for disconnected users WHEN triggering call to server, invite to reconnect
var msg;
msg = Messenger().post({
message: "You lost internet,You need to be connected"
});
}
});
I want to test in rspec/capybara (I use webkit driver) that the right content ("You need to be connected. Please connect and try again") is displayed in that case in my feature test.
context "As signed-in visitor who is OFFLINE line when he clicks on the area triggering the modal" do
it "displays the right message " do
visit deal_page_path(deal)
# HOW TO ASSERT THAT THE USER LOSES HIS INTERNET CONNECTION
# USER GOES OFFLINE
first("a#button").click
within('ul.messenger') do
expect(page).to have_content('You lost internet,You need to be connected')
end
end
end
The complexity is that I can't disconnect him from the beginning of the test as he needs to be connected to load the page visit deal_page_path(deal) but then I want to simulate that he loses the internet connection.
How to achieve this ?
Assuming you're just checking window.naviagtor.onLine to determine whether or not it is on/offline (not depending on any events or anything) and because you're using capybara-webkit (won't work in selenium since FF won't let you overwrite navigator, not sure about poltergeist) you can just overwrite window.navigator with the result you want to get. You'll also need to generate an error response for your ajax request, which you can do with puffing-billy
page.execute_script "window.navigator = { onLine: false }"
I have AJAX calls initiated by Rails UJS that I would like to test. specifically, I have used Rails UJS ajax events to provide for cases of errors.
I would like to test them but I don't know how to tell rspec/capybara to "stub" and assume the error code
$("button").
on('ajax:error',function(event,xhr, status, error){
if(status == "timeout") {
var msg;
msg = Messenger().post({
message: "This is taking too long"
});
} else {
var msg;
msg = Messenger().post({
message: "it seems there is a bug. Please try again."
});
};
});
I would like to do something like the following:
describe "test returning error message", js: true do
it "should be successful" do
visit deal_page_path(deal)
first('a.button').click
stub(:xhr.status) = "timeout"
expect(page).to have_content('This is taking too long')
end
end
How to do this?
Note: the ajax requests are internal they don't go to third party API or services (such as facebook for ex).
When testing with Capybara (JS enabled drivers) it has no access to the request or response except through the changes it creates in the browser. You could build a test mode into your relevant controllers that could be turned on and off to allow it to output the errors you want, but the cleanest way to do this is probably to use a programmable proxy like puffing-billy which will allow you to selectively return whatever you'd like for any given request from the browser. One thing to realize is that this isn't testing that app correctly returns errors, it's just testing that your front-end handles errors the way you expect.
I'm building an app which is architected as a Rails server app providing RESTful api's to the client. The Rails server uses RABL. The client is an Angular JS client performing standard $http calls (gets, puts, etc).
Occasionally my Rails server will produce an error (let's say validation error attached to the object) or even no error in which case I would want to display something to the user - either the errror e.g., "The record did not save because..." or "The record was updated successfully".
I'm trying to map out a pattern on both the Rails side and the Angular/client side to handle this.
As for Rails:
I can certainly pass back a node in each of my RABL files to contain error arrays
I can also return different RABL by checking in the controller before returning
Most suggest using http codes (which makes sense) as per here (although there doesn't seem to be a consistent usages of the codes for something like a validation error).
As for Angular:
I suppose I can write a response interceptor but not sure how that would fully get flushed out.
I guess I'm hoping that I don't have to reinvent the wheel here and someone can point me to a pattern that's currently used and suggested (and localized).
I went ahead and implemented what I thought needed to be done. Thanks for digger69 for some help with this.
On the Rails side, I went with using an http status code. As per here I agreed with using a 400 http status code for error validation.
In my controllers I now have something like the following:
def create
my_obj = MyObj.build_with_params(params)
if my_obj.save
respond_with(my_obj) # regular RABL response
else
respond_with_errors(my_obj.errors)
end
end
In my application_controller.rb I defined a common method respond_with_errors
# respond back to the client an http 400 status plus the errors array
def respond_with_errors(errors)
render :json => {:errors => errors}, :status => :bad_request
end
Note that the :bad_request symbol is already defined for Rails as per here
On the client side I needed to intercept http calls (not only for validation but for authentication failures too (and probably more). Here is an example of my code in Angular (thanks to this post for the help with that):
var interceptor = ['$rootScope', '$q', function (scope, $q) {
function success(response) {
return response;
}
function error(response) {
var status = response.status;
if (status == 401) { // unauthorized - redirect to login again
window.location = "/";
} else if (status == 400) { // validation error display errors
alert(JSON.stringify(response.data.errors)); // here really we need to format this but just showing as alert.
} else {
// otherwise reject other status codes
return $q.reject(response);
}
}
return function (promise) {
return promise.then(success, error);
}
}];
$httpProvider.responseInterceptors.push(interceptor);
I now can be consistent with my rails code and deal with success returns from http calls on the client. I'm sure I have some more to do, but I think this gives a localized solution.
Use an HTTP response interceptor. I am currently using that successfully in an application.
http://docs.angularjs.org/api/ng.$http
From the documentation:
$provide.factory('myHttpInterceptor', function($q, dependency1, dependency2) {
return function(promise) {
return promise.then(function(response) {
// do something on success
}, function(response) {
// do something on error
if (canRecover(response)) {
return responseOrNewPromise
}
return $q.reject(response);
});
}
});
$httpProvider.responseInterceptors.push('myHttpInterceptor');
In my case I created a feedback service, which displays either success or error messages globally. An other option would be to broadcast the responses on the rootscope.
Below is part of my codes in C#, it suppose to send email, show the msg box, then direct to 'Multihotelbook.aspx' page, but the direct to the page without showing the msgbox. i dont know why. need help
emailClient.Send(message);
// Response.Write("<script>window.alert('Email sent')</script>");
//ClientScript.RegisterStartupScript(typeof(Page), "myscript", "<script>alert('Email sent');</script>");
// System.Windows.Forms.MessageBox.Show("Email sent");
// MessageBox.Show("Email sent");
// MessageBoxResult result = MessageBox.Show("Email sent", "Confirmation");
//ClientScript.RegisterStartupScript(typeof(Page), "myscript", "<script>alert('Email sent');</script>");
//ScriptManager.RegisterStartupScript(this, typeof(string), "Message", "confirm('Email sent');", true);
//ScriptManager.RegisterStartupScript(this.Page, this.GetType(), "KEY", "alert('Email sent')", true);
Page.ClientScript.RegisterStartupScript(typeof(string), "alert", "<script>alert('Email sent')</script>");
Response.Redirect("Multihotelbook.aspx");
This... looks like ASP.NET code. There is no MessageBox in ASP.NET. Notice that you had to fully reference System.Windows.Forms, which I imagine you also had to add as a reference. Windows Forms and ASP.NET are two very different things.
What exactly are you trying to accomplish? Showing a JavaScript alert()? If that's the case then you can just include some additional JavaScript code in the response.
Except... you're also doing this:
Response.Redirect("Multihotelbook.aspx");
Which means that the response to the client is being clobbered by a header which tells the client to go to Multihotelbook.aspx. So the client never sees anything else you're including in the response, basically anything in RegisterStartupScript.
After this code executes, the client is going to end up on Multihotelbook.aspx. Unless there's a JavaScript alert() on that page, the browser won't show one.
One approach you could try is to pass a flag to Multihotelbook.aspx, something like Multihotelbook.aspx?emailSent=true and in the Page_Load of that page check for that value and, if it's set to true, include JavaScript code in the page to show the alert() (probably using RegisterStartupScript like you're already trying).
I have a form that lets users select checks, and when submitted, creates a PDF, which opens in a new browser tab. It doesn't have any branding, and will probably open in a plugin anyway, so I don't want it taking over my site's tab. So I set the form's target to _blank.
But it's possible for the user to submit the form without enough information to create the PDF, in which case I flag the error (server-side) and re-render the form. But because I set the form's target, this re-render opens in a new tab as well, and that's not what I want - in this case, I want it to behave as if target were _top.
So the question is: Can I change the browser's rendering target server-side?
Yes, I know that this can be done with client-side JavaScript, but JS annoys me, and I have to do the validation server-side anyway. I may end up having to use it, but please don't suggest it as an answer - I'm more curious if what I'm attempting can even be done.
PS: I'm on Ruby on Rails 2.3.8, in case anyone knows a framework-specific solution.
A workaround on this problem would be to use the content-disposition header on the pdf, in order to force the file to be downloaded, and avoid the whole "target" approach..
Content-type: application/pdf
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="downloaded.pdf"
No. This is a purely client-specific feature. As a matter of fact, it's quite possible to get a browser that supports only one window and where the target attribute would have simply no effect. There were even efforts to make this attribute disappear from future HTML standards completely (for instance, the XHTML branch had no such attribute).
The only overlap that I can think of between HTML and HTTP are the <meta http-equiv> tags (where HTML can affect otherwise HTTP-controlled behavior). HTTP is a transfer protocol, designed to work with about just any kind of data. Letting it control presentation would be a pretty terrible mix of concerns.
Fortunately, we live in a JavaScript-enabled world. It is rather easy to validate a form using an AJAX request, especially with libraries like jQuery.
For instance, this script performs a POST request to an URL (in this case, /pdf/validate) and expects the page to send back "ok" (if everything's good) or something else if there was an error.
<form method="post" action="/pdf/send" id="pdf-form">
<!-- form stuff here -->
</form>
<script type="text/javascript" src="jquery.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
$(document).ready(function()
{
// set to true if we are to bypass the check
// this will happen once we've confirmed the parameters are okay
var programmaticSubmit = false;
// attach an event handler for when the form is submitted
// this allows us to perform our own checks beforehand; we'll do so by
// cancelling the event the user triggered, and do the submit ourselves if
// we detect no error
$('#pdf-form').submit(function(event)
{
if (!programmaticSubmit)
{
// first off, cancel the event
event.preventDefault();
// do an AJAX request to /pdf/validate
$.ajax("/pdf/validate", {
type: "POST",
data: $(this).serialize(), // send the form data as POST data
success: function(result)
{
// this gets called if the HTTP request did not end
// abnormally (i.e. no 4xx or 5xx status);
// you may also want to specify an "error" function to
// handle such cases
if (result == "ok")
{
// since the server says the data is okay, we trigger
// the event again by ourselves, but bypassing the
// checks this time
programmaticSubmit = true;
$(this).submit();
}
else // something went wrong! somehow display the error
alert(result);
}
});
}
});
});
</script>