I have a system with microservice architecture. So I have a setup such that when I hit an URL, for example "http://localhost:8081/data/myId/" I get back a JSON response describing a resource. This is the system which I have created.
It turns out that there is some more complexity as to get this response, I am making a connection to an external service provider - this is what I want to use WireMock to mock, as this service provider has an API call limit. Let us say that I am interacting with this service provider at the following URL "https://api.dummyservice.com/". (So all "http://localhost:8081/data/myId/" calls consist of a "https://api.dummyservice.com/" call.)
So I am using WireMock as follows
java -jar '/home/user/Desktop/wiremock-standalone-2.19.0.jar'
--recd-mappings
--proxy-all https://api.dummyservice.com/
--verbose
--print-all-network-traffic
My intention is to listen to all calls at https://api.dummyservice.com/ through my microservice-based system so that I can stub and mock the responses. The problem is that I am not capturing any traffic at all when I access "http://localhost:8081/data/myId/" and get a successful response back!
Have I misunderstood WireMock's application? How can I debug this issue? It seems that I am performing quite a straightforward task.
I am on an Ubuntu 18.04 system if it makes any difference.
It seems you use standalone WireMock in a proper way, but please check correct params here
--record-mappings
--proxy-all="https://api.dummyservice.com/"
Related
I am working on a distributed web application using Spring Microservices design pattern where individual services are running on different ports like -
Product Management - domain:8500
User Management - domain:8501
Now If the user calls User Management by opening the URL "domain:8501/some_url" which internally calls Product Management i.e. "domain:8500/some_other_url" and also assume that certificate is self-signed i.e. for the browser, the CA is unknown and hence the exception needs to be manually added in the browser.
In this case, while Chrome works fine, Firefox and IE also probably adds the exception for domain with port and hence for internal call as well it waits internally for the security exception to be added.
As a result, my API calling is failed. Is this a Firefox behaviour or I am doing something wrong?
AJ
Try either using an API gateway or a proxy. You can use Zuul for a proxy. Please go through Zuul starter.
You can even do some more interesting things by having a proxy. Like:
Implementing Security: Implement Validation & Verification as security check over the proxy and can avoid the same over other microservices.
Response Handling: You can alter a generic response from your microservices in proxy for the client(Web/Mobile Browser/Mobile App)
Hope this helps.
Is there any way in spring where I can POST the requests to another domain from My controller? I have parameters which I need to pass in POST from the controller to another third party domain, is this possible?
What you probably want is for your server to act like a HTTP client and send some data via HTTP POST to a third server:
Your web app client ---> Your web server ---> Another web server
If that is indeed what you need, yes, it is possible. The fact that your application is a web server itself isn't important, although it can be confusing - it's easier to think about it as if you wanted to post the data from an ordinary command-line Java application.
One of the many tools that can help you is Apache HttpClient.
I want to run a simple webserver in Go doing some basic authorisation and routing to multiple apps.
Is it possible to have the webserver running as a standalone executable and pass the response writer and http request to other executables?
The idea is that the app binaries can hopefully be compiled and deployed independently of the webserver.
Memory areas of running applications are isolated: a process cannot just read or write another application's memory (Wikipedia: Process isolation).
So just passing the response writer and the http request is not so easy. And even if you would implement it (e.g. serializing them into binary or text data, sending/passing them over somehow, and reconstructing them on the other side) serving an HTTP request in the background is more than just interacting with the ResponseWriter and Request objects: it involves reading from and writing to the underlying TCP connection... so you would also have to "pass" the TCP connection or create a bridge between the real HTTP client and the application you forward to.
Another option would be to send a redirect back to the client (HTTP 3xx status codes) after doing the authentication and routing logic. With this solution you could have authentication and certain routing logic implemented in your app, but you would lose further routing possibilities because further request would go directly to the designated host.
Essentially what you try to create is the functionality of a proxy server which have plenty of implementations out there. Given the complexity of a good proxy server, it should not be feasible to reproduce one.
I suggest to either utilize an existing proxy server or "refactor" your architecture to avoid this kind of segmentation.
I'm starting with Websockets and I have a problem.
I have a sails.js application that uses sockets to update the client side.
On the client side it makes an API call using socket.get("/api/v1/actor...") to bring all the items of the database. When I see what the WebSocket's traffic on the Chrome console:
As you can see, the connection has been established and the API call has been correctly done through the socket.
The problem is, there is no answer from the server, not even an error.
If I make the same API call using ajax, I get response, but it doesn't work using WebSockets.
Any idea what might be producing this behavior?
EDIT: I add here the code here that processes the request and this one here that sends the request, but the problem is that it never execute this code. I think we we are closer to the find the cause, since we think it has to do with a network problem. We figured there is an F5 reverse-proxy which is not properly set up to handle websockets
The answer didn't make any sense now that I've seen the code that's why I've edited it. I only answered because I could't comment on your question and ask you for the code.
Your calling code seems correct and the server side of things the process of response should be handled automatically by the framework, you only need to return some JSON in the controller method.
I instantiated a copy of the server (just changed the adapters to run it locally) and the server replied to the web socket requests (although I only tested the route '/index').
Normally when the problems are caused by a reverse proxy the socket simply refuses to connect and you can't even send data to server. Does the property "socket.socket.connected" returns true?
The best way to test is to write a small node application with socket.io client and test it in the same machine that the application server is running, then you can exclude network problems.
So I created a TCP\HTTP server (IN C#). I want to give to it namespace on my 80's port near to other HTTP servers I have. How to do such thing (step - by step)?
Look at HTTP Server Tasks in MSDN spec:
Initialize HTTP service API, call HttpInitialize
Register URLs with HTTP.SYS, call HttpAddUrlToUrlGroup
Receive a request, call HttpReceiveHttpRequest
Send a response, call HttpSendHttpResponse
Cleanup after urself, call HttpRemoveUrl and HttpTerminate
There is a also a fully fledged application sample at HTTP Server Sample Application.
As you can clearly see, HTTP.SYS API is a C API intended for C applications. You shouldn't be using it from C#, and I'd recommend against pInvoking the entire API. Managed applications have the alternative of using HTTP modules and extend the ASP.Net processing. This avenue will take care of many details needed in a managed server, like activation, hosting, process monitoring and recycling and so on and so forth.
The way you would normally interact with http.sys is by registering an ISAPI DLL with IIS. This is a good starting-point.