I have spent my afternoon getting very excited about the container-native serverless platform 'fn project' - http://fnproject.io/.
I love the idea of the FaaS model but have no intention of locking myself into a particular cloud vendor for most of the lifetime of an app - and several other reasons including the desire to spin up the entire app on a small server anywhere if I choose.
fn project seems great for my needs until I finish perusing the documentation and all the relevant blog posts and suddenly think 'what? Wait....what??? Where are the http operations?'.
I cannot find a single reference anywhere that states if it is even possible to to have http triggers for different http operations (ie POST, PUT, PATCH, DELETE), let alone how I would do it.
I want to build REST api's (or certainly at the very least json-serving http-based RPC apis - if it doesn't have hypermedia links it isn't REST ;) but let's not get into that one in this thread)
Am I missing something here (certainly the correct bit of documentation)??
Can anybody please enlighten me as to how I would do this, or even tell me if I have totally misunderstood what I should use this for?
My excitement has gone soft for now but I'm hoping someone that will change with the right information.
It feels odd that I can't find anyone else complaining about this, so I think that indicates my misunderstanding perhaps.
Other solutions such as OpenFaaS look interesting but I dont wan't to have to learn how to deploy kubernetes and docker swarms if I can avoid it :)
I'm not an expert, but as of now it seems not possible to specify the http method inside the trigger. Check latest trigger spec : as you can see, there is no notion of http method here.
However, handling different HTTP methods can be done inside the function itself.
For example, in Java (with fdk-java v1.0.80), you can use com.fnproject.fn.api.httpgateway.HTTPGatewayContext as the first parameter of the function, as described in the section "Accessing HTTP Information From Functions" of the documentation :
In Fn for Java, when your function is being served by an HTTP trigger (or another compatible HTTP gateway) you can get access to both the incoming request headers for your function by adding a 'com.fnproject.fn.api.httpgateway.HTTPGatewayContext' parameter to your function's parameters.
Using this allows you to :
...
Access the method and request URL for the trigger
...
You can then retrieve the HTTP method by calling getMethod() on the HTTPGatewayContext passed as parameter.
In other languages (with others fdk), it's possible to do the same :
in Go : example calling RequestMethod() on context
in Ruby : class HTTPContext
in Python : class HTTPGatewayContext
in Node : class HTTPGatewayContext
From this different contexts, you'll then be able to get method parameter passed when fn invoke --method=[GET|POST|...] (via fn-http-method header).
The main drawback here is that all HTTP methods should be handled in the same function. Nonetheless, you can structure your code to have only one class per method.
After some further thought it seems fairly clear now what my actual misunderstanding was....
When I have built Serverless framework services in the past (or built and deployed Lambda functions using terraform) I have been deploying to AWS and so have been using AWS's API Gateway offering (their product is actually called API gateway but its important to recognise that API Gateway is a distributed systems / micro-sevices design pattern).
API gateway makes it possible to route specific http request types including the method (GET,POST,PUT,DELETE) to the desired functions.
Platforms such as Fn project and OpenFaaS do not provide an out of the box api gateway solution and it seems we would need to take care of this ourselves.
These above mentioned platforms are about deployment of functions. We find the other bits via our product of choice.
Related
I'm running an IIS web site (built using ASP.NET/MVC) that among other things collects files from multiple agents that anonymously upload the files via BITS.
I need to make sure that only files uploaded from known sources as well as matching certain predefined file name pattern will be accepted by IIS. All other BITS upload attempts must be cancelled.
As I understand, BITS uses an ad hoc protocol over HTTP 1.1 using "BITS_POST" verb. So, ideally, I'd like to hook into IIS, analyze a BITS_POST request info and if it does not satisfy my pre-conditions, drop the request.
I've tried to create and register a filter implementing IActionFilter.OnActionExecuting, but it seems that my filter does not receive BITS_POST requests.
I'd be glad to hear if somebody have implemented similar BITS related solutions and how this was done. Anyway, other ideas are welcome too.
Regards,
Natan
I have never worked with BITS, frankly i dont know what is it.
What i usually do is such situations is implement an HTTP module. On its begin request event, you can iterate through incoming HTTP request data and decide to stop processing the request if data is not complying with requirements. You have full access to HttpContext.Current.Request object from HTTP module code.
With HTTP modules, you can execute .NET code even before entering the ASP.NET pipeline.
Is there a way to mock requests when writing automated UI tests in Swift 2.0. As far as I am aware the UI tests should be independent of other functionality. Is there a way to mock the response from server requests in order to test the behaviour of the UI dependant on the response. For example, if the server is down, the UI tests should still run. Quick example, for login, mock if password failed then UI should show alert, however, if the login is successful the next page should be shown.
In its current implementation, this is not directly possible with UI Testing. The only interface the framework has directly to the code is through it's launch arguments/environment.
You can have the app look for a specific key or value in this context and switch up some functionality. For example, if the MOCK_REQUESTS key is set, inject a MockableHTTPClient instead of the real HTTPClient in your networking layer. I wrote about setting the parameters and NSHipster has an article on how to read them.
While not ideal, it is technically possible to accomplish what you are looking for with some legwork.
Here's a tutorial on stubbing network data for UI Testing I put together. It walks you through all of the steps you need to get this up and running.
If you are worried about the idea of mocks making it into a production environment for any reason, you can consider using a 3rd party solution like Charles Proxy.
Using the map local tool you can route calls from a specific endpoint to a local file on your machine. You can past plain text in your local file containing the response you want it to return. Per your example:
Your login hits endpoint yoursite.com/login
in Charles you using the map local tool you can route the calls hitting that endpoint to a file saved on your computer i.e mappedlocal.txt
mappedlocal.txt contains the following text
HTTP/1.1 404 Failed
When Charles is running and you hit this endpoint your response will come back with a 404 error.
You can also use another option in Charles called "map remote" and build an entire mock server which can handle calls and responses as you wish. This may not be exactly what you are looking for, but its an option that may help others, and its one I use myself.
I'm planning on implementing a single-page application in Rails/AngularJS which also has some pieces that are exposed as a "public" API. My question is, what's the best way to architect the two APIs in such an application? E.g. Is it wise to have them both housed/versioned in the same namespace, or should they be kept separate somehow?
This is relatively new territory for me, but at first blush it seems like providing a single API covering both internal and external needs, then parsing up which pieces are available via some kind of authorization system based on the provided token would be the best way of going about this.
Is this the right direction, or would you recommend some other path?
FWIW, I will give you my opinion.
CAVEAT: I'm not a rails guy so I'm coming at this from nodejs/expressjs land.
There are many ways to skin this cat, but I'll just say that you are headed in the right direction. if you want to look at a very opinionated way to do things (and one people might hate) in node, see this: https://github.com/DaftMonk/fullstack-demo/blob/master/server/api/user/index.js. here you see this bit:
var router = express.Router();
router.get('/', auth.hasRole('admin'), controller.index);
router.delete('/:id', auth.hasRole('admin'), controller.destroy);
router.get('/me', auth.isAuthenticated(), controller.me);
router.put('/:id/password', auth.isAuthenticated(), controller.changePassword);
router.get('/:id', auth.isAuthenticated(), controller.show);
router.post('/', controller.create);
these routes correspond to calls to http:/serverurl/api/user/ etc. obviously, these are all checking authentication, but you could easily create a resource route that didn't need to check for authentication before passing control to the controller and (eventually) sending back a resource.
the approach this takes is to have middleware on the server check for auth tokens to make sure the client can call the api. without making you look into the code too much, i'll just give you a basic rundown.
client(requests Auth)->server(approves passes back token)->client(stores token)
LATER:
client(requests api call sends token in request)->server(passes request to middleware that checks token to make sure its kosher)->server(sends back resource and token)->client(uses resource and stores token)
then the whole thing repeats.
as far as whether to have separate apis vs one namespace, i don't have a very strong opinion. it really depends on how you structure your app. if you know in advance what resources will be public, then its probably easy to create a namespaced api.
angular can easily adapt to multiple api calls. you can create services for your public vs private http calls (or whatever way you decide to call the api.)
hope this was somewhat helpful! sorry its not railsy! (but nodejs/express is awesome!)
Hi i have googled all day long but i can't find an answer.
I have to write a web app which talks to asterisk.
It should be able to do ClicktoCall operations.
Can you guys recommend something ?
I came across a few projects but I'm still not sure.
I just want to connect to Asterisk and do calls from the web app.
thanks
If you're a Ruby programmer the best way for you to hook into Asterisk is adhearsion. It wraps up Asterisk's AGI and Manager (MAPI) APIs for you.
Also hAve a look at SIP, asterisk, adhearson and VoIP and in particular Adam Kalsey's answer. He works for Tropo which sponsor the adhearsion project.
First you need to know, that the protocol Asterisk uses is SIP, you can learn more at the Wikipedia.
Since you want to use an rails application, you may want to use ruby as well, so there's a ruby implementation named OverSip, you can check their API and see if it fits your requirements.
If you are aiming at web calls, you'll need an WebRTC, Flash or Java applet. For WebRTC you can check sipML5 for an opensource solution.
You can also opt for an interface, that will start a call from one number to another, using your phone. When the first call is picked up the server starts ringing in the destination.
Also you could make use of cloud communications providers like twilio, tropo, etc.
Try this Google search:
rails asterisk manager interface
I saw some interesting things right off. I am not trying to be one if those Use Google type people, just didn't want to paste all the links in that I found from this Google search.
Check it out, hope it helps.
There are several ways to do this but the three easiest ones are
1. Generate a call file on the Asterisk server
These files should be written to the dir
/var/spool/asterisk/outgoing
Asterisk will then pickup the file, process and delete it.
It's pretty aggressive when doing this so it's recommended to write the file into a temporary directory and then move it to the spool dir for processing.
An tutorial of the file format is here:
https://www.voip-info.org/asterisk-auto-dial-out/
(I personally feel this is a bit "hacky", and prefer doing it with an API call)
2. Generate the call by the AMI API interface.
Use the Originate function of the AMI API to generate the call. It's pretty easy to set this up just configure the manager.conf file whitch sets up a HTTP server on port 5038 from witch you can call the API.
https://www.voip-info.org/asterisk-config-managerconf/
3. Set up the call using the ARI API
First you need to setup ari.conf, this is enough for now:
[general]
enabled = yes
pretty=yes
allowed_origins=http://ari.asterisk.org
[my_username]
type = user
read_only = no
password = my_password
password_format = plain
This is a little bit more complicated to set up, but it really isn't that hard if you just get past the technical geek-speak. Just set up two channels, setup a mixing bridge and add both channels to the bridge.
To set up a click2call you dont even need to do that...
This is the call we use (ruby):
where
#{sip_id} is your registered SIP username
#{number} is the extension that is sent to the dialplan
#{USERNAME}
#{PASSWORD} is from ari.conf
HTTParty.post("http://sipserver.com/ari/channels?endpoint=SIP/#{sip_id}&extension=#{number}&context=outgoing&priority=1&timeout=30&api_key=#{USERNAME}:#{PASSWORD}")
(Note that you need to send the variabels for the variable parameter as a separate JSON for the originate command if you need to send them)
A really useful tool to understand how this works is the swagger at
http://ari.asterisk.org. We already allowed this origin in ari.conf so it should be ready to go. Remember to open your ports in firewalls etc.
Setup your Server IP and port and the API_KEY is in this format: my_username:my_password
I'm developing a REST API at the moment, and one of the core features of this is that is uses a variety of HTTP status codes to return status/error information, some of which may be extended information (e.g. if an item is not found, some other similar items) which will be in the response body.
This is fine until you get to 'crippled' clients like Flash and JavaScript which can't access the response body or headers unless the HTTP status code is 200 OK (even a 201 Created success code can cause Flash to fail thinking it's an error).
So my question is, is there a standard way for allowing this type of client to request that all status codes are HTTP 200, and to indicate the real status code in another way?
One solution I was thinking of is, in the pattern of the HTTP Accept-* family of headers, using an X-Accept-Status extension header to specify which status codes can be handled, e.g. Flash would send...
X-Accept-Status: 200
...and then any status code not in this list would be mapped to one that is, and the error returned in the response body, possibly with another extension header indicating the real status code, e.g.
X-HTTP-Status-Code: 404 Not Found
This all seems a bit horrible, and working against the protocol, but if you have clients that cannot use the protocol property then that's unavoidable. I'm just looking for something a bit like X-HTTP-Method-Override (which is a 'standard' way of working around the protocol for clients that cannot send PUT/DELETE requests) but for clients that cannot understand status codes.
well, actually the problem with HTTP and REST is, that REST is a really good idea, and HTTP describes a really good implementation of it ... but really, many clients and servers only implement part of HTTP ...
i don't think HTTP is a must ... still, REST is a good idea and RESTfulness of a system is a powerful property ... so why not use HTTP as a stupid transport layer for a RESTful system?
this is what you are doing, although in my opinion, you are holding on a bit too much to HTTP and all it's theoretically built-in features ... do you really need to transport the information in a status code?
don't depend so much on your transport protocol/layer ... have a clear idea in mind, how your service should work ... seperate the protocol semantics from its implementation ... on both client and server ... abstract your RESTfulness and status codes too (make them more then just integers ... make it enums, or objects ... exceptions, why not?)...
and then plug-in protocols/transport layers at will ...
make a standard HTTP implementation
make a hacky one, using the solution you described (which to me seems perfectly valid ... if people are using technologies unable to use the standards, why should you bother too much finding the most standard-conform solution)
make whatever you have the time to do, and your server is able to do, binary, JSON, XML ... whatever seems adequate ...
two technical notes, though:
flash player does it's HTTP traffic over the browser ... and it simply does not get the status codes from the browser ... well it depends on the browser in fact ... the specs say, it does not work for: "Netscape, Mozilla, Safari, Opera, and Internet Explorer for the Macintosh." ... so IE for windows should be working? Chrome? I don't know ... but i think, it doesn't matter, since obviously, you cannot rely on it ... oh, and to state the most obvious: JavaScript also does its HTTP over the browser, of course ... so same problem here ...
for both this implies, that if you would succeed in finding something like X-HTTP-Method-Override for response, that is built in the protocol, a good browser would understand that, and would remap things accordingly, before deciding which information to give to JavaScript or 3rd-party plugins ... so you'd end up with nothing again ... i guess ...
you should simply choose your response method based on the client ... and maybe the client should send some extra info, if it is unable to use the HTTP standard ... otherwise throw at it, what follows the standard ... i'd first make an implementation using standard HTTP, yet hiding the HTTP itself away, and once everything works, write one using
greetz
back2dos
Am I wrong for thinking that one shouldn't let a crippled out-of-the-box potential client to the API dictate the features of the API implementation? I guess practical considerations win the day, but in general I guess my vote is in favor of building API implementations "properly" and requiring custom client-side programming as needed.
Bit late for that response, but...
When I implemented a flash client API with an early version of OpenRasta, I had X-ResponseLine that contained the response code and text, on each outgoing request.
As headers are by default only generic headers, they have no involvement in caching, so no reason to have an Accept / Vary on this.