I am using echo to build a web server in go. What is the best way to pass objects around middlewares and a handler apart from using context.Set method?
For example, let's consider the following case:
func mw(next echo.HandlerFunc) echo.HandlerFunc {
return func(c echo.Conext) error {
var value TypeX = // load value of type TypeX based on query parameters
c.Set("key", value)
return next(c)
}
}
func h1(c echo.context) error {
value := c.Get("key").(TypeX)
return c.JSON(http.StatusOk, value.H1())
}
func h2(c echo.context) error {
value := c.Get("key").(TypeX)
return c.JSON(http.StatusOk, value.H2())
}
func registerRoute(e *echo.Echo) {
e.Get("/test", h)
}
Is there any way to get rid of get/set methods? It seems like an unclean way of doing this operation. I am open to complete refactoring, creating new structures/interfaces to make this happen.
To take this example further, lets say my apis can fall into bucket1, bucket2, bucket3. Value would call the method b1, b2, b3 based on which bucked it falls in. These buckets can be identified by adding them as middleware mwB1, mwB2, mwB3 each of which calls the respective method. Hence, all my apis would first call the middleware mw; then one of mwB1, mwB2, mwB3 and finally the actual handler, something like, e.Get("/test", h, mw, mwB2). I don't want to load value everywhere and get/set seems unclean to me (unless that is the standard way of doing this).
Related
I have a piece of code which is used to load configuration from file and parse it into a struct, I use this configuration quite often and hence I pass it around in the method parameters. Now I as my method parameters are increasing, I am looking at dependency injection and have settle with wire.
Now I have created a provider to load the configuration and an injector to provide the config struct. However each time I call the injection my file is read again, I want that the file is read once and the injection provided as many times as required without any additional loading.
Here is my provider:
// ProvideConfig config provider ...
func ProvideConfig() *config.FileConfig {
var cfp string
flag.StringVar(&cfp, "config", "config.json", "absolute path")
flag.Parse()
return config.Loadconfig(cfp)
}
Injector:
// GetConfig injector ...
func GetConfig() ConfigResource {
wire.Build(ProvideConfig, NewConfigResource)
return ConfigResource{}
}
Now when I call:
injection.GetConfig()
I see that ProvideConfig is called always. I can have a check in the provide config method the determine if the config is already loaded, I am not sure if there is a better way, something like a single instance loader which is built into the wire. I tried looking into the docs but could not find anything relevant.
As far as I'm aware, there's no built in way in wire to specify that a provider is a singleton / should only be called once.
This is accomplished in the usual way in Go, by using sync.Once. Your provider function can be a closure that does the expensive operation only once using sync.Once.Do. This is idiomatic in Go, and doesn't require any special provision from every library that wants to provide "single" loading.
Here's an example without wire:
type Value struct {
id int
msg string
}
type ValueProvider func() *Value
// consumer takes a function that provides a new *Value and consumes
// the *Value provided by it.
func consumer(vp ValueProvider) {
v := vp()
fmt.Printf("Consuming %+v\n", *v)
}
// MakeSingleLoader returns a ValueProvider that creates a value once using an
// expensive operation, and then keeps returning the same value.
func MakeSingleLoader() ValueProvider {
var v *Value
var once sync.Once
return func() *Value {
once.Do(func() {
v = ExpensiveOperation()
})
return v
}
}
// ExpensiveOperation emulates an expensive operation that can take a while
// to run.
func ExpensiveOperation() *Value {
return &Value{id: 1, msg: "hello"}
}
func main() {
sl := MakeSingleLoader()
consumer(sl)
consumer(sl)
consumer(sl)
}
If you're OK with the "singleton" value being a global, this code can be simplified a bit. Otherwise, it only calls ExpensiveOperation once, and keeps the value cached in a local inaccessible outside MakeSingleLoader.
I just started learning Go and want to create my own REST API.
The problem is simple:
I want to have the routes of my api in a different file for example: routes/users.go that then I include in the "main" function and register those routes.
There are a high number of examples of restAPI's in Echo/Go but all of them have the routes in the main() function.
I checked a few examples/github starter kits but it seems that I cannot find a solution that I like.
func main() {
e := echo.New()
e.GET("/", func(c echo.Context) error {
responseJSON := &JSResp{Msg: "Hello World!"}
return c.JSON(http.StatusOK, responseJSON)
})
//I want to get rid of this
e.GET("users", UserController.CreateUser)
e.POST("users", UserController.UpdateUser)
e.DELETE("users", UserController.DeleteUser)
//would like something like
// UserRoutes.initRoutes(e)
e.Logger.Fatal(e.Start(":1323"))
}
//UserController.go
//CreateUser
func CreateUser(c echo.Context) error {
responseJSON := &JSResp{Msg: "Create User!"}
return c.JSON(http.StatusOK, responseJSON)
}
//UserRoutes.go
func initRoutes(e) { //this is probably e* echo or something like that
//UserController is a package in this case that exports the CreateUser function
e.GET("users", UserController.CreateUser)
return e;
}
Is there an easy way to make this? Coming from node.js and still having some syntax errors of course, will solve them, but I am struggling with the architecture of my code at the moment.
I want to have the routes of my api in a different file for example:
routes/users.go that then I include in the "main" function and
register those routes.
This is possible, simply have your files in the routes package declare functions that take an instance of *echo.Echo and have them register the handlers.
// routes/users.go
func InitUserRoutes(e *echo.Echo) {
e.GET("users", UserController.CreateUser)
e.POST("users", UserController.UpdateUser)
e.DELETE("users", UserController.DeleteUser)
}
// routes/posts.go
func InitPostRoutes(e *echo.Echo) {
e.GET("posts", PostController.CreatePost)
e.POST("posts", PostController.UpdatePost)
e.DELETE("posts", PostController.DeletePost)
}
and then in main.go
import (
"github.com/whatever/echo"
"package/path/to/routes"
)
func main() {
e := echo.New()
routes.InitUserRoutes(e)
routes.InitPostRoutes(e)
// ...
}
Note that the InitXxx functions need to start with an upper case letter as opposed to your initRoutes example which has its first letter in lower case. This is because identifiers with lower case first letters are unexported, which makes them inaccessible from outside their own package. Put another way, for you to be able to reference an imported identifier you have to export it by having it start with an upper case letter.
More here: https://golang.org/ref/spec#Exported_identifiers
I want to be able to pass function name to gin.Engine route handler. I have the following code;
// status service
type StatusService struct {
App *gin.Engine
}
func (s *StatusService) Ping(ctx *gin.Context) {
ctx.JSON(200, gin.H{
"message": "pong",
})
}
app := gin.Default()
// define services
statusService := &services.StatusService{
App: app,
}
ss := make(map[string]interface{})
ss["auth"] = statusService
app.GET("/ping", ss["auth"].Ping)
The compiler gives the following error;
./app.go:60: ss["auth"].Ping undefined (type interface {} has no field or method Ping)
Any ideas about how to fix that?
interface{} works for just about any type, the problem is that you've failed to assert which type the thing is. In this case you would need something like... ss["auth"].(*StatusService).Ping(myCtxInstance). This answer has a more thorough example which I'll refrain from duplicating; Go map of functions
Couple other things; if your real use case is as simple as your example just stop what you're doing and add func(ctx *gin.Context) as a second argument. Also, depending on the nature of the functions you want to use (like if they all have the same args and return types) then you might want to use a second arg for the delegates, map[string]func(argumentType) would be more appropriate.
The design you currently have pushes all errors to runtime which obviously is less desirable than the compile time safety you'd get from either of the options I touched on above.
I want to determine a simple and useful pattern for user authentication in a web app being written in golang.
I have come up with two patterns. First one is enabling the programmer to have his functions separate form the authentication logic, and has cleaner HandleFunc parts in main() that one can see only by loking main() to see what parts are under authentication control.
Second one is making programmer include a decision in every function deal with authentication required urls. An if statement checks by a authp() function defined else where.
Which one is better pattern for such necessity?
What are the better patterns for this job?
Is it even possible to pass a function to http.HandleFunc that has signature other than func urlFunc (ResponseWriter, *Request) bu like func urlFunc (successFunc, failFunc) or func urlFunc (ResponseWriter, *Request, successFunc, failFunc) as in authenticationGateKeeper function of First Way below, if not a suitable workaround for that?
//First Way
package main
func authGateKeeper(successFunc, failFunc) {
if (authp()) {
successFunc
} else {
failFunc
}
}
func authp() boolean {
//authentication logic, db query, or session check etc.
}
//usage in main
http.HandleFunc("/", authGateKeeper)
//Second Way; other alternative, in each function check pattern
func f(w, r) {
if (authp()) {
//function's processes
} else {
//the fail case function or processes
}
}
func authp() boolean {
//authentication logic, db query, or session check etc.
}
//usage in main
http.HandleFunc("/", f)
There are many ways to spin this, and it's arguable whether one is outright "better". I'd strongly suggest writing some middleware that wraps your routes and enforces the check, calling the wrapped handler only on success.
Note that I'm going to make a few assumptions here as you haven't told us how you're managing sessions (cookies? server-side?) and/or what kind of authorization you might need on top of authentication.
// Middleware - a function that sits in the 'middle' of your request processing.
func RequireAuth(h http.Handler) http.Handler) {
fn := func(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {
// Assuming gorilla/sessions
session, err := store.Get("name", r)
if err != nil {
// Raise HTTP 500
return
}
// We'll assume you're storing the userID in the cookie|server session
// upon login elsewhere.
id := session.Values["userID"]
// Probably returns a *yourapp.User
user, err := db.GetUser(id)
if err != nil {
// Raise HTTP 500
return
}
if user == nil {
http.Error(w, http.StatusText(http.StatusUnauthorized), http.StatusUnauthorized)
// Don't forget these 'naked' returns - if you miss one, your
// handler will keep processing beyond the error and result in
// unintended side effects
return
}
// Further checks here - i.e. checking user.Active == true, etc.
// The userID matches one in the DB, so let's proceed
h.ServeHTTP(w, r)
}
return http.HandlerFunc(fn)
}
// And in your router - assuming just vanilla net/http
http.Handle("/", RequireAuth(yourHandlerFunc))
http.Handle("/", RequireAuth(someOtherHandler))
// Note that using gorilla/mux or goji can help give you "subrouters" so you
// don't have to wrap every single route with your middleware (messy, error prone)
I'd also suggest some reading on Go middleware1 composition2 which will help you in the future.
If you want to call a custom error page, just write a handler - e.g. UnauthorizedHandler that satisfies http.Handler and just call UnauthorizedHandler.ServeHTTP(w, r) instead of http.Error along the way.
TLDR Here is a playground that demonstrates the issue if you try to run it: https://play.golang.org/p/myQtUVg1iq
I am making a REST API and have many types of resources that can be retrieved via a GET request
GET http://localhost/api/users
GET http://localhost/api/groups
I have a models package which abstracts how the different resources are implemented:
func(m *UserManager) Get() []Users {
// Internal logic, assume returns correct results
}
func(m *GroupManager) Get() []Groups {
// Internal logic, assume returns correct results
}
A routes file setups all the routes and handlers:
users := models.UserManager{}
groups := models.GroupManager{}
func GetUsersHandler (w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {
users := users.Get()
// Implementation details, writing to w as JSON
}
func GetGroupsHandler (w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {
groups := groups.Get()
// Implementation details, writing to w as JSON
}
func registerRoutes(r *mux.Router) {
r.handleFunc("/api/users", GetUsersHandler).Method("GET")
r.handleFunc("/api/groups", GetGroupsHandler).Method("GET")
}
I am trying to make this more generic by creating an interface and then only needing a single GetHandler. Something like this:
type Getter interface {
Get() []interface{}
}
func GetHandler(g Getter) {
return func(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {
results := g.Get()
// Implementation details, writing to w as JSON
}
}
func registerRoutes(r *mux.Router) {
r.handleFunc("/api/users", GetHandler(&users)).Method("GET")
r.handleFunc("/api/groups", GetHandler(&groups)).Method("GET")
}
This is really close to working, the only problem is the return type from the models is a specific object type, but the interface just uses the interface return type. Is there any way to solve this without making the models return []interface{}?
https://play.golang.org/p/myQtUVg1iq
Try not to approach the problem like you would other OOP languages. You can't have covariant containers in Go, so you either have to use an empty interface{}, or you have to structure your program differently.
If your Get methods are different and you want to group types in an interface, use another method (sometimes we even have noop methods just for interfaces), or just pass in users or groups as an interface{}. You'll need to do a type switch or assertion at some point in the call chain anyway, and once you know what type it is you can handle it accordingly.
It's hard to tell without more code, but in this case, the easiest path may just be to have each type be an http.Handler itself, and it can dispatch accordingly.
I ended up avoiding this problem entirely and instead of trying to reduce the amount of code I am using the new go generate feature in Go 1.4 to create the code that is necessary for each resource.