https://docs.connect.squareup.com/api/connect/v2/#type-createorderrequest
In the documentation for square, there's a few "dangling items". Specifically, there's a "CreateOrderRequest" and other related items, and they make reference to a "create order" endpoint, but no such endpoint exists in the documentation.
How do I work with this endpoint, and does it really exist?
Related
Specifically, can SCIM be used to add Users to pre-existing (non SCIM-created) groups? We need to provision users via SCIM, but then add them to Groups created manually in the site (a .Net application).
As I understand it, it can't be done like this. Group Update requests (i.e. PATCH requests) seem to require the "id" attribute as the unique identifier for the group, and this "id" seems to be only generated in SCIM Create Requests. So if a Resource (Group / User) wasn't originally created via SCIM, SCIM can't update/replace/delete it. Is that correct?
e.g. PATCH /Groups/acbf3ae7-8463-4692-b4fd-9b4da3f908ce
I thought about a workaround convention, such as using "user:1234" and "group:1234" as the "id" attribute format (i.e. [resource type]:[internal type-specific ID]), and then any User or Group can be specified by "id", even if it wasn't created via SCIM. But that seems pretty hacky.
Is there a better way of doing this? Many thanks for any help, very new to SCIM!
Yes, SCIM can be used to manage "brownfield" scenarios where existing non-SCIM created objects exist.
Typically the logic flow that happens for a user object is:
GET on /users with a filter (as defined in RFC7644 3.4.2.2) using an attribute that is uniqueness constrained (such as userName, email).
If no user found matching that criteria, create a new user with POST to /users
If a user was found, it should bereturned with an id value even if it was not created via SCIM
The general logic of "Search using a friendly identifier -> create if not found/cache the id value and associated it with existing user in the other directory" is pretty simple and can be successfully used with other object types (ie: groups) as well.
I am pondering about schema design with regard to explicit vs implicit relation when to...
for example:
in an imaginary schema with 2 custom types author and post, each with several properties, A post type can reference an author in 1 of 2 ways:
explicit: having an Autor type property
implicit: having a scalar value that indirectly points to the author
when designing a shema. what should be my compass in this kind of desicion making?
thanks in advance
There's absolutely no value to the client in only returning the ID of a related resource when you could just expose a field that would return the entire resource. Exposing only the ID will mean the client will have to make subsequent requests to your service to fetch the related resources, instead of being able to fetch the entire data graph in one request.
In the context of other services, like a REST API, it might make sense to only return the ID or URL of a related resource. This is because in those cases, the payload is of a fixed size, so returning every related resource by default can quickly and unnecessarily bloat a response. In GraphQL, however, request payloads are client-driven so this is not a concern -- the client will always get exactly what it asks for. If the client needs only the author's ID, they may still fetch just that field through the author field -- while allowing a more complete Author object to be fetched in other requests or by other clients.
JSON API REST endpoint with permissions-restricted fields
I am working on a JSON API-compliant REST api. Some endpoints contain fields that should be restricted (read-only or not available) for certain users.
What is the best way to architect the api to allow that certain users have access to certain fields, while others do not? By "best", I mean:
Most compliant with REST standards, ideally JSON API standards
Most clarity in terms of preventing bugs and confusion on behalf of clients consuming the API
I am considering the following options, each with their set of concerns/ questions. I would be more than grateful for any other solutions!
Option 1: Return null on restricted fields for users without permissions
Different data values would be returned per-user. Is this strictly anti-REST?
Lack of distinction between null meaning "null value" and null meaning "You don't have access to this"
In REST/ JSON API architecture, is it okay for an endpoint to return different data per user, based on permissions? I have the impression that this would be contrary to the spirit of resource-based REST architecture, but I could not find anything specific to point to in any doc or standard (e.g. JSON API). Also applies to Option 2.
Is there any paradigm for adding some sort of "You don't have access" flag in the resource's metadata?
Option 2: Exclude restricted fields entirely for users without permissions
Different data values would be returned per-user. Is this strictly anti-REST?
Possibility of "undefined" errors in client, when trying to retrieve field value
Option 3: Move restricted field(s) onto another endpoint, available as an ?include='field_name' relation for those with permission
Example: /api/entity includes attribute field "cost" which is only available to Admin users. Admin users can request cost data via GET /api/entity?include=cost. For all users, "cost" is exposed as a relation in the resource object, with a "type" and "id".
This is the option I am leaning toward. The main con here is endpoint clutter. I have a lot of relations that would need to be made into separate endpoints, simply to support a permissions-quarantined data on an already-existing endpoint.
In the JSON API specs, I am having trouble determining if it's ok for an endpoint to exist as a relation only, e.g. can we have /api/entity/1/cost, but NOT have a top-level api endpoint, /api/cost. My assumption is that if a resource has a "type" (in this case, the relation type being 'cost'), it also has to live on a top-level endpoint.
In this scenario, the client could get a 401: Unauthorized error response if a non-admin user tries to GET /api/entity?include=cost or GET /api/cost/:id
Note: I have already built a separate permissions schema so that the client can determine which CRUD privileges the user has, per top-level endpoint, before making any requests. Permission sets are indexed by resource type.
Any help on the matter would be very much appreciated! And if anything needs to be clarified, feel free to ask.
I would definitely not use undefined or null to indicate fields that the user is not allowed to see. To me, that feels like a lie and represents that the data is really not there. They would have to really know your API in order to get a grasp of what is really going on.
I would recommend something more like your 3rd option, except I would make it a different endpoint altogether. So in your example, the endpoints would be:
/api/entity/1/cost
and for admins
/api/admin/entity/1/cost
or something like that.
This way your server code for the admin endpoint could just be focused on authenticating this admin user and getting them back all the fields that they have visibility on. If a non admin user tries to hit that route, reject them with an unauthorized status code.
I'm not saying that you should not implement the GET param to be able to specify fields as well. You can if you want to, but I don't think it just won't be necessary in this case.
With the old /reportstats endpoint you could fetch actions grouped per target name by adding action_target_name to the group options. This would give you a list of targets and their actions. In the new API endpoint /insights, only action_target_id is available as group option. The target can be anything, e.g. a post, a pixel, etc. but there is no type indication returned, so all you have is an ID and some actions...
So, when grouping actions by action_target_id, is there any way to get the target's name that belongs to the ID?
I'm thinking about using Stormpath with it's Java API as a user storage.
Looks good, except that I can't search for users.
For example, I get this error:
Exception in thread "main" com.stormpath.sdk.resource.ResourceException: HTTP 400, Stormpath 2105 (http://docs.stormpath.com/errors/2105): Account ID is not a supported query property.
when I execute this query:
HashMap<String, Object> queryParams = Maps.newHashMap();
queryParams.put("ID", "4mPXXXXXXXXXX");
searchResult = application.getAccounts(queryParams);
Searching for a user by e-mail however works. I get the same error when I try to search a user by a login-token I stored in the customData property.
It looks like what I want to do is not possible as it looks like the only properties you can query are e-mail and username. But why would they provide this functionality if it didn't work. What am I missing?
There is an impedance mismatch between common relational database behaviors and those in a REST API. Querying by id, while common in relational databases, is not idiomatic behavior for REST APIs (or most HTTP-based web sites). The URL (href) is the canonical 'pointer' to a resource on the web. In other words, in REST APIs, the canonical identifier is the href. Any token inside an href (any internal 'id', special characters, whatever) should be opaque to REST clients and ignored by clients entirely. URLs are king in HTTP and REST.
That being the case, the Stormpath SDK tries to be true to RESTful best practices, so you can obtain any Stormpath resource by using the client.getResource method, which accepts an href and the type of object you expect that href to represent:
String href = "https://api.stormpath.com/v1/accounts/" + id;
Account account = client.getResource(href, Account.class);
That said, there's nothing wrong with wanting this to be more conveniently represented in the client API, for example, client.getAccount(String id) if you want to keep the notion of IDs. If so, please open a new feature request and we'll be very happy to consider it.
As for queryable Account properties, those are documented here. Stormpath will soon make data in Custom Data searchable as well. While Stormpath feature timelines are never announced, it is the company's highest engineering priority and it should be out soon.
One workaround that is helpful for some people is to store data they want to search in Account Fields that you don't use in your applications. For example, you could use the 'middle name' field to store, say, favorite color. This would only be temporary until custom data search is available. HTH!