[FIXED, the answer is below]
I'm new to spring boot and graphql so this question might be dump but I didn't found the answer to my question on internet so I'm asking it here.
How are we supposed to use input arrays for graphql mutations ?
Here is how I tried :
// schema.graphqls
type Mutation{
test(input:TestInput):String
}
input TestInput{
temp:[Int]
}
// #Controller TestInputController.java
#MutationMapping
public String test(#Argument TestInput input){
System.out.println("hello");
System.out.println(input);
return "test";
}
record TestInput(Integer[] temp){}
// mutation in graphiql
mutation{
test(input:{
temp:[5]
})
}
// result
Error : java.lang.IllegalStateException: Cannot access properties on null bean instance 'input'
Do you have an idea of how I can fix that ? Or any resource that can explain me my problem ?
Thanks in advance
For fixing the problem, we should use List as input instead of Integer[]
Related
I figured that there is a way to group endpoints into different swagger documents, but i wanted to know if there is a way to separate endpoints based on get/post/patch operations?
For eg, i have 2 endpoints
Get : /app/employee
Post: /app/employee
How can i segregate them into 2 different swagger documents?
Edit 1 : I am referring the below article to segregate swagger endpoints in spring boot:
https://dev.to/s2agrahari/grouping-apis-in-swagger-55kk
Maybe your questione answered by using tags?
Here is the Official example.
Regards.
In your application.yaml, you can configure like this:
springdoc:
swagger-ui:
operationsSorter: method
enabled: true
tags-sorter: alpha
Reference: https://swagger.io/docs/open-source-tools/swagger-ui/usage/configuration/
Also there is a question with more details for setting it programatically: https://swagger.io/docs/open-source-tools/swagger-ui/usage/configuration/
You gave the answer partially yourself, you can just do:
#Bean
GroupedOpenApi getApis() {
return GroupedOpenApi.builder().group("My Get Apis").addOpenApiCustomiser(customizer()).build();
}
And then some logic (maybe you have double check it, but something like so):
public OpenApiCustomiser customizer() {
return (OpenAPI openApi) -> {
final List<String> keysToDelete = new ArrayList<>();
for (Map.Entry<String, PathItem> entry : openApi.getPaths().entrySet()) {
if(entry.getValue().getGet() == null) {
keysToDelete.add(entry.getKey());
}
}
keysToDelete.forEach(key -> openApi.getPaths().remove(key));
};
}
And the same for Post or any other Rest operation....
I'm deserializing a large XML file (not mine) and it contains custom entities defined as:
<!ENTITY math "mathematics">
and elements used this way:
<field>&math;</field>
When I try to deserialize it by:
XmlMapper xmlMapper = new XmlMapper();
ClassLoader classloader = Thread.currentThread().getContextClassLoader();
return xmlMapper.readValue(classloader.getResourceAsStream("file.xml"), MyClass.class);
I get this error:
com.fasterxml.jackson.databind.JsonMappingException: Undeclared general entity "math"
I think it might be a security measure to prevent Xml External Entity injections.
Is there a way to mark these custom entities as valid? Like create an Enum for them or something?
If not, is there a flag to just parse these as Strings?
Update:
I was able to work around this problem by basically doing a find-replace on the text file. It's quite an ugly solution and if anyone has a better idea, I'm all ears. :)
I know it may be a little late, but just in case someone else is stuck on the same issue:
You have to set a custom XMLResolver as XMLInputFactory's property:
import com.fasterxml.jackson.dataformat.xml.XmlMapper;
import com.ctc.wstx.api.WstxInputProperties;
import javax.xml.stream.XMLResolver;
import javax.xml.stream.XMLStreamException;
var xmlMapper = new XmlMapper();
xmlMapper.getFactory().getXMLInputFactory().setProperty(
WstxInputProperties.P_UNDECLARED_ENTITY_RESOLVER,
new XMLResolver() {
#Override
public Object resolveEntity(String publicId, String systemId, String baseUri, String ns) throws XMLStreamException {
// replace the entity with a string of your choice, e.g.
switch (ns) {
case "nbsp":
return " ";
default:
return "";
}
// some useful tool is org.apache.commons.text.StringEscapeUtils
// e.g.
// return StringEscapeUtils.escapeXml10(StringEscapeUtils.unescapeHtml4('&' + ns + ';'));
}
}
);
// then xmlMapper.readValue....
Problem
We're developing a Spring Boot service to upload data to different back end databases. The idea is that, in one multipart/form-data request a user will send a "model" (basically a file) and "modelMetadata" (which is JSON that defines an object of the same name in our code).
We got the below to work in the WebFlux annotated controller syntax, when the user sends the "modelMetadata" in the multipart form with the content-type of "application/json":
#PostMapping(consumes = [MediaType.MULTIPART_FORM_DATA_VALUE], produces = [MediaType.APPLICATION_JSON_VALUE])
fun saveModel(#RequestPart("modelMetadata") monoModelMetadata: Mono<ModelMetadata>,
#RequestPart("model") monoModel: Mono<FilePart>,
#RequestHeader headers: HttpHeaders) : Mono<ResponseEntity<ModelMetadata>> {
return modelService.saveModel(monoModelMetadata, monoModel, headers)
}
But we can't seem to figure out how to do the same thing in Webflux's functional router definition. Below are the relevant code snippets we have:
#Bean
fun modelRouter() = router {
accept(MediaType.MULTIPART_FORM_DATA).nest {
POST(ROOT, handler::saveModel)
}
}
fun saveModel(r: ServerRequest): Mono<ServerResponse> {
val headers = r.headers().asHttpHeaders()
val monoModelPart = r.multipartData().map { multiValueMap ->
it["model"] // What do we do with this List<Part!> to get a Mono<FilePart>
it["modelMetadata"] // What do we do with this List<Part!> to get a Mono<ModelMetadata>
}
From everything we've read, we should be able to replicate the same functionality found in the annotation controller syntax with the router functional syntax, but this particular aspect doesn't seem to be well documented. Our goal was to move over to use the new functional router syntax since this is a new application we're developing and there are some nice forward thinking features/benefits as described here.
What we've tried
Googling to the ends of the Earth for a relevant example
this is a similar question, but hasn't gained any traction and doesn't relate to our need to create an object from one piece of the multipart request data
this may be close to what we need for uploading the file component of our multipart request data, but doesn't handle the object creation from JSON
Tried looking at the #RequestPart annotation code to see how things are done on that side, there's a nice comment that seems to hint at how they are converting the parts to objects, but we weren't able to figure out where that code lives or any relevant example of how to use an HttpMessageConverter on the ``
the content of the part is passed through an {#link HttpMessageConverter} taking into consideration the 'Content-Type' header of the request part.
Any and all help would be appreciated! Even just some links for us to better understand Part/FilePart types and there role in multipart requests would be helpful!
I was able to come up with a solution to this issue using an autowired ObjectMapper. From the below solution I could turn the modelMetadata and modelPart into Monos to mirror the #RequestPart return types, but that seems ridiculous.
I was also able to solve this by creating a MappingJackson2HttpMessageConverter and turning the metadataDataBuffer into a MappingJacksonInputMessage, but this solution seemed better for our needs.
fun saveModel(r: ServerRequest): Mono<ServerResponse> {
val headers = r.headers().asHttpHeaders()
return r.multipartData().flatMap {
// We're only expecting one Part of each to come through...assuming we understand what these Parts are
if (it.getOrDefault("modelMetadata", listOf()).size == 1 && it.getOrDefault("model", listOf()).size == 1) {
val modelMetadataPart = it["modelMetadata"]!![0]
val modelPart = it["model"]!![0] as FilePart
modelMetadataPart
.content()
.map { metadataDataBuffer ->
// TODO: Only do this if the content is JSON?
objectMapper.readValue(metadataDataBuffer.asInputStream(), ModelMetadata::class.java)
}
.next() // We're only expecting one object to be serialized from the buffer
.flatMap { modelMetadata ->
// Function was updated to work without needing the Mono's of each type
// since we're mapping here
modelService.saveModel(modelMetadata, modelPart, headers)
}
}
else {
// Send bad request response message
}
}
Although this solution works, I feel like it's not as elegant as the one alluded to in the #RequestPart annotation comments. Thus I will accept this as the solution for now, but if someone has a better solution please let us know and I will accept it!
I'm new to Spring Reactive programming and I'm developing a REST endpoint that returns a Flux. For example:
#PostMapping
public Flux<MyResponse> processRequests(#RequestBody List<MyRequest> requests) {
return Flux.merge(Arrays.asList(dataSource.processRequest(requests.get(0)), dataSource2.processRequest(requests.get(0)))).parallel()
.runOn(Schedulers.elastic()).sequential();
}
Each data souce (dataSource and dataSource2) in the example code implements an interface that looks like this:
public interface MyResponseAdapter {
Flux<MyResponse> processRequest(MyRequest request);
}
This code works fine in that it returns the Flux as expected, but as you can see, the code only references the first element in the list of MyRequest. What I need to do is construct the Flux.merge for each element in the list of MyRequest. Can anyone point my in the right direction?
I think I've identified a simple solution:
List<Flux<MyResponse>> results = new ArrayList<>();
for (MyRequest myRequest : requests ) {
results.add(dataSource.processRequest(myRequest));
results.add(dataSource2.processRequest(myRequest));
}
return Flux.merge(results).parallel().runOn(Schedulers.elastic()).sequential();
I am using Spring Cloud SQS messaging for listening to a specified queue. Hence using #SqsListener annotation as below:
#SqsListener(value = "${QUEUE}", deletionPolicy = SqsMessageDeletionPolicy.ALWAYS )
public void receive(#Headers Map<String, String> header, #Payload String message) {
try {
logger.logInfo("Message payload is: "+message);
logger.logInfo("Header from SQS is: "+header);
if(<Some condition>){
//Dequeue the message once message is processed successfully
awsSQSAsync.deleteMessage(header.get(LOOKUP_DESTINATION), header.get(RECEIPT_HANDLE));
}else{
logger.logInfo("Message with header: " + header + " FAILED to process");
logger.logError(FLEX_TH_SQS001);
}
} catch (Exception e) {
logger.logError(FLEX_TH_SQS001, e);
}
}
I am able to connect the specified queue successfully and read the message as well. I am setting a message attribute as "Key1" = "Value1" along with message in aws console before sending the message. Following is the message body:
{
"service": "ecsservice"
}
I am expecting "header" to receive a Map of all the message attributes along with the one i.e. Key1 and Value1. But what I am receiving is:
{service=ecsservice} as the populated map.
That means payload/body of message is coming as part of header, although body is coming correctly.
I wonder what mistake I am doing due to which #Header header is not getting correct message attributes.
Seeking expert advice.
-PC
I faced the same issue in one of my spring projects.
The issue for me was, SQS configuration of QueueMessageHandlerFactory with Setting setArgumentResolvers.
By default, the first argument resolver in spring is PayloadArgumentResolver.
with following behavior
#Override
public boolean supportsParameter(MethodParameter parameter) {
return (parameter.hasParameterAnnotation(Payload.class) || this.useDefaultResolution);
}
Here, this.useDefaultResolution is by default set to true – which means any parameter can be converted to Payload.
And Spring tries to match your method actual parameters with one of the resolvers, (first is PayloadArgumentResolver) - Indeed it will try to convert all the parameters to Payload.
Source code from Spring:
#Nullable
private HandlerMethodArgumentResolver getArgumentResolver(MethodParameter parameter) {
HandlerMethodArgumentResolver result = this.argumentResolverCache.get(parameter);
if (result == null) {
for (HandlerMethodArgumentResolver resolver : this.argumentResolvers) {
if (resolver.supportsParameter(parameter)) {
result = resolver;
this.argumentResolverCache.put(parameter, result);
break;
}
}
}
return result;
}
How I solved this,
The overriding default behavior of Spring resolver
factory.setArgumentResolvers(
listOf(
new PayloadArgumentResolver(converter, null, false),
new HeaderMethodArgumentResolver(null, null)
)
)
Where I set, default flag to false and spring will try to convert to payload only if there is annotation on parameter.
Hope this will help.
Apart from #SqsListener, you need to add #MessageMapping to the method. This annotation will helps to resolve method arguments.
I had this issue working out of a rather large codebase. It turned out that a HandlerMethodArgumentResolver was being added to the list of resolvers that are used to basically parse the message into the parameters. In my case it was the PayloadArgumentResolver, which usually always resolves an argument to be the payload regardless of the annotation. It seems by default it's supposed to come last in the list but because of the code I didn't know about, it ended up being added to the front.
Anyway, if you're not sure take a look around your code and see if you're doing anything regarding spring's QueueMessageHandler or HandlerMethodArgumentResolver.
It helped me to use a debugger and look at HandlerMethodArgumentResolver.resolveArgument method to start tracing what happens.
P.S. I think your #SqsListener code looks fine except that I think #Headers is supposed to technically resolve to a Map of < String, Object >", but I'm not sure that would cause the issue you're seeing.