The example api below lets users create an object. The user should be able to specify the name field of the Thing object, while the id field should be automatically generated.
Given the setup below, swagger will display both the name and the id field for the request as something the user can enter, as well as displaying both fields as optional. In reality, for the request, name should be required while id should never be entered by the user.
(Note: the object that is returned when creation is successful, should include the generated id field)
I suppose one option would be to create a copy of the Thing object that is identical, except for the lack of the id field ("ThingCreationRequestObject").
Is this an acceptable solution? It seems there should be a way that doesn't require the maintenance of two objects that essentially represent the same thing.
#RequestMapping(value = "/thing", method = RequestMethod.POST)
Thing createThing(#RequestBody Thing thing) {
// add thing to database, including a generated id
// return thing object, now including the generated id
}
public class Thing {
private String id;
private String name;
}
// Swagger
Thing {
id (string, optional),
name (string, optional)
}
You can annotate the id field with #ApiModelProperty(hidden = true) , in this case it will be hidden from swagger, but still if the user entered the id then it will parsed and assigned to the id field so you need also annotate the setter method only of the id with #JsonIgnore
public class Thing {
#ApiModelProperty(hidden = true)
private String id;
private String name;
public String getId() {
return id;
}
#JsonIgnore
public void setId(String id) {
this.id = id;
}
public String getName() {
return name;
}
public void setName(String name) {
this.name = name;
}
}
Related
I have an existing system that uses string based unique IDs for users and I want to transfer that System into a Spring boot application. I want to creat a user so I send a POST request with the following content:
As you can see, the id gets ignored.
This is my Spring code for the user class:
#PostMapping("/user")
ResponseEntity addUser(User receivedUser) {
Logger logger = Logger.getLogger(Logger.GLOBAL_LOGGER_NAME);
logger.info("Empfangener User: " + receivedUser.toString());
try {
User mailCheckUser = userService.getUserByMail(receivedUser.getEmail());
User nameCheckUser = userService.getUserByName(receivedUser.getUsername());
if (mailCheckUser != null){
return new ResponseEntity("Email already exists", HttpStatus.NOT_ACCEPTABLE);
}
if (nameCheckUser != null){
return new ResponseEntity("Username already exists", HttpStatus.NOT_ACCEPTABLE);
}
userService.addUser(receivedUser);
} catch (Exception userCreationError) {
return new ResponseEntity(receivedUser, HttpStatus.INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR);
}
return new ResponseEntity(receivedUser, HttpStatus.OK);
}
public void addUser(User user) {
userRepository.save(user);
}
And this is my user class:
#Entity
#Table
public class User {
#Id
#Column(unique =true)
private String id;
private #Column(unique =true)
String username;
private #Column(unique =true)
String email;
private #Column(unique =true)
String simpleAuthToken;
private
String password;
/*REDACTED*/
private
boolean isBlocked;
public User(String id, String name, String email, boolean isBlocked) {
this.id = id;
this.username = name;
this.email = email;
this.simpleAuthToken = simpleAuthToken;
this.isBlocked = false;
}
public User() {
}
/*GETTERS AND SETTERS ARE HERE, BUT I CUT THEM FOR SPACING REASONS*/
}
And this is the Spring Output:
My expected outcome would be that Spring would recognize the id and then create a user with the id I provided. Why is the id always null?
EDIT: If I put the ID in a Put or Get Mapping as Path variable, like so:
#PutMapping("/user/{id}")
ResponseEntity updateUser(#PathVariable String id, User receivedUser) {}
then it gets read and recognized, but it will still be null in the receivedUser
First add #RequestBody in the post request body. In the Post request (/test/user) your passing some params but in the method level not received.
If you want receive id from postman then add #RequestParam("id")String id in the method level.
How you generating unique Id by manually or some generators?
And double check user id at the database console level.
I have a controller returning all cars in my database. It is achieved by putting the car list into Resources(see the code). I want to be able to rename the list's name from 'carDTOList' to 'carList". How to do that?
public class CarDTO {
private String id;
private UserDTO owner;
private String brand;
private String model;
private String color;
private String plate;
private String additionals;
#GetMapping("/cars")
public ResponseEntity<?> getAllCars() {
List<Resource<CarDTO>> cars = StreamSupport.stream(repository.findAll().spliterator(), false)
.map(car -> assembler.toResource(modelMapper.map(car, CarDTO.class)))
.collect(Collectors.toList());
Resources<Resource<CarDTO>> carsResource = new Resources<Resource<CarDTO>>(cars, ControllerLinkBuilder
.linkTo(ControllerLinkBuilder.methodOn(CarController.class).getAllCars()).withSelfRel());
return ResponseEntity.ok(carsResource);
}
{
"_embedded": {
"carDTOList": [
{
"id": "5d5bc8144a8fb83fd42120e1",
"owner": {
"id": "5d5bc8144a8fb83fd42120de",
As you see in the response it is set to 'carDTOList'
You can use Spring annotation:
#org.springframework.hateoas.core.Relation(value = "resource", collectionRelation = "resources")
to annotate your DTO class. So now when you return one element it will be called resource. If you return list it will be called resources.
If you want to keep the CarDTO Java name, then take advantage of the Jackson annotation to change naming:
#JsonRootName("car")
public class CarDTO {
Based on the config you have, when a collection is returned then a List suffix will be added.. resulting in carList.
you can refactor (rename the file) CarDTO class to CarList. That should do it.
I have a Product model object like this -
class ProductDTO {
int id;
String code;
String description;
//getters and setters go here
}
I am writing a service (code below) that looks up products by id or code and returns their description. I am using Spring 4 and ehcache to cache the results.
I have 2 methods - one for lookup by id and one for lookup by code - they are getProductByCode and getProductById. Both return the description as a string. They do so by calling getAllProducts() which returns a list of all products. The callers then search the list for a product matching the id or code and return the description.
getAllProducts() also calls 2 methods with #CachePut for each product - to save the description Strings in cache - by key code and id.
Caching works properly if the same arguments are passed for code or id to to the getProductByCode and getProductById methods. But if I pass a different argument, getAllProducts() is called again.
How do I achieve the desired behavior - where every time a call is made to getAllProducts(), all descriptions get cached and a subsequent call looks up the cache rather than going to the repository?
public class ProductServiceImpl implements ProductService {
#Autowired
ProductsRepository ProductRepo;
#Override
public List<ProductDTO> getAllProducts() {
List<ProductDTO> products = ProductRepo.getAllProducts();
for(ProductDTO prodDTO : products) {
String desc = prodDTO.getDescription();
String code = prodDTO.getCode();
int id = prodDTO.getId();
putDescriptionInCache(desc, code);
putDescriptionInCache(desc, id);
}
return products;
}
#CachePut(value = "products", key = "#id")
public String putDescriptionInCache(String description, int id){
return description;
}
#CachePut(value = "products", key = "#code")
public String putDescriptionInCache(String description, String code){
return description;
}
#Override
#Cacheable(value="products", key="#id")
public String getProductById(Integer id) throws NullPointerException {
String dtoDesc = null;
List<ProductDTO> products = getAllProducts();
for(ProductDTO currDTO : products) {
int currId = currDTO.getId();
if(id.equals(new Integer(currId))) {
dtoDesc = currDTO.getDescription();
}
}
return dtoDesc;
}
#Override
#Cacheable(value="products", key="#code")
public String getProductByCode(String code) throws NullPointerException {
String dtoDesc = null;
List<ProductDTO> products = getAllProducts();
for(ProductDTO currDTO : products) {
String currCode = currDTO.getCode();
if(currCode.equals(code)) {
dtoDesc = currDTO.getDescription();
}
}
return dtoDesc;
}
}
As it was commented by M. Deinum, the problem comes from the annotations, like CachePut or Cacheable, being transformed into an aspect at runtime. And the main limitation with that approach is that calls from the same class are not properly captured.
As you replied yourself in the comments section, moving the annotated methods to another type that is injected in the current one solves the problem.
I have the following MongoDB Repository
public interface TeamRepository extends MongoRepository<Team, TeamId> {
....
}
And the following classes:
public abstract class DbId implements Serializable {
#Id
private final String id;
public DbId(final String id) { this.id = id;}
public String getId() { return id;}
}
public class TeamId extends DbId {
public TeamId(final String id) {
super(id)
}
}
As you can see, I have like a custom id for the repository (I have MongoRepository instead of something like MongoRepository). But, when I am trying to save a Team object, I get an error saying that MongoDB does not know how to generate DBId. Any clue?
MongoDb (or any database) would not know how to generate a string ID without you informing it what the value of the string is.
The default #Id is a string representation of ObjectId, which can be auto-generated by MongoDB. If you are changing the type of string ObjectId to a class, then at least the class needs to define:
** Conversion to string (serialisable), for example:
#Override
public String toString() {
return String.format(
"TeamID[uniqueString=%s]",
myUniqueString);
}
** How to generate the Id.
You can define a method in your TeamRepository i.e. save() to specify how your string can be generated. Alternatively you can check out
https://www.mkyong.com/mongodb/spring-data-mongodb-auto-sequence-id-example/
Where the example specify getNextSequenceId() to generate NumberLong custom id. Hopefully that guides you to your answer.
With gson, is it possible to use a custom deserializer / serializer only on certain fields? The user guide shows how to register an adapter for an entire type, not for specific fields. The reason why I want this is because I parse a custom date format and store it in a long member field (as a Unix timestamp), so I don't want to register a type adapter for all Long fields.
Is there a way to do this?
I also store Date values as long in my objects for easy defensive copies. I also desired a way to override only the date fields when serializing my object and not having to write out all the fields in the process. This is the solution I came up with. Not sure it is the optimal way to handle this, but it seems to perform just fine.
The DateUtil class is a custom class used here to get a Date parsed as a String.
public final class Person {
private final String firstName;
private final String lastName;
private final long birthDate;
private Person(String firstName, String lastName, Date birthDate) {
this.firstName = firstName;
this.lastName = lastName;
this.birthDate = birthDate.getTime();
}
public static Person getInstance(String firstName, String lastName, Date birthDate) {
return new Person(firstName, lastName, birthDate);
}
public String toJson() {
return new GsonBuilder().registerTypeAdapter(Person.class, new PersonSerializer()).create().toJson(this);
}
public static class PersonSerializer implements JsonSerializer<Person> {
#Override
public JsonElement serialize(Person person, Type type, JsonSerializationContext context) {
JsonElement personJson = new Gson().toJsonTree(person);
personJson.getAsJsonObject().add("birthDate", new JsonPrimitive(DateUtil.getFormattedDate(new Date(policy.birthDate), DateFormat.USA_DATE)));
return personJson;
}
}
}
When the class is serialized, the birthDate field is returned as a formatted String instead of the long value.
Don't store it as a long, use a custom type with a proper adapter. Inside your type, represent your data any way you want -- a long, why not.