I'm an android beginner and I want to make a login using volley library, but i don't
know how i can obtain the JSONObject response from my server and use it to check
login parameters and launch a specific activity if the user exist.
//assuming you are implementing this part from an activity.
//otherwise, replace “this” with relevant context
RequestQueue myQueue = queue = Volley.newRequestQueue(this);
//your server address
String url = "http://my-json-feed";
//Create your JSON object request
JsonObjectRequest jsObjRequest = new JsonObjectRequest
(Request.Method.GET, url, null, new Response.Listener() {
#Override
public void onResponse(JSONObject response) {
//process the server response here.
//use the “response” object for checking the login parameters, etc.
}
}, new Response.ErrorListener() {
#Override
public void onErrorResponse(VolleyError error) {
//Handle errors such as network failures,etc here
}
});
//add the request object to the Volley queue
myQueue.add(jsObjRequest);
The "onResponse()" is the callback function which will give you the json object returned by the server. Inside that function, use that response to do whatever you want (for your case, to check login parameters, etc.)
For details, look here: Request JSON
Another note:
If you are to use the VolleyQueue only in one or two activities, it's okay to create separate volley queues for those couple of activities. But, if you have lots of activities and all of them needs to use Volley, then it would be a very bad choice to create volley queues for each activity. It can cause you OutOfMemory exception in the worst case. You can consider creating a singleton VolleyQueue which will be used by the whole application (Creating an ApplicationController class and including the Volley singleton queue in it can be one way to do that).
Related
In HtmlUnit for testing, I'm coming across a case where, on page load, it'd be useful to NOT execute the Javascript automatically, and instead wait for me to initiate and tell the Javascript to start executing?
My specific use-case is testing something which the Javascript does some tests, and then does a location replace to send the user on to another page. I want to check some headers which I'm returning for testing/validation, and then let the JS execute as usual.
My current thought is to have a flag I pass to the page when testing which will cause the JS to not automatically run, and wait until I call a JS function from within the Java code via webClient.getJavaScriptEngine().execute().
While not specifically being able to pause JavaScript before invoking, it may be worthwhile to use the WebConnectionWrapper class to inspect/modify the response data or outgoing requests, effectively giving you a chance to execute your own code before the JavaScript is invoked.
An example usage of this is as follows:
try (final WebClient webClient = new WebClient()) {
webClient.getOptions().setThrowExceptionOnScriptError(false);
// set more options
// create a WebConnectionWrapper with an (subclassed) getResponse() impl
new WebConnectionWrapper(webClient) {
public WebResponse getResponse(WebRequest request) throws IOException {
WebResponse response = super.getResponse(request);
if (request.getUrl().toExternalForm().contains("my_url")) {
String content = response.getContentAsString();
// intercept and/or change content
WebResponseData data = new WebResponseData(content.getBytes(),
response.getStatusCode(), response.getStatusMessage(), response.getResponseHeaders());
response = new WebResponse(data, request, response.getLoadTime());
}
return response;
}
};
// use the client as usual
HtmlPage page = webClient.getPage(uri);
}
The above code is from the official documentation here:
How to modify the outgoing request or incoming response?
The getResponse() method that you would override is called before each request is made and also allows you to modify the WebResponse object that is passed back to WebClient for its continued processing.
Sorry but at the moment (version 2.43.0) we have no such option. Feel free to open a issue on github for this.
I guess other test tools might also benefit from this function.
Trying to upload an image and it keeps sending as just bytes, not an image file. This is a very simple call, I don't need to send any params other than the image itself. I don't know how to format logs so I won't post the error here unless requested to.
The service:
public interface FileUploadService {
#Multipart
#POST("upload_profile_picture")
Call<ResponseBody> uploadProfilePicture(#Part("profile_picture") RequestBody file);
}
The call being made (a file is generated earlier, had to remove this code because SO needs the post to be mainly words..dumb..):
// Generate the service from interface
FileUploadService service = ServiceGenerator.createService(FileUploadService.class, this);
// Create RequestBody instance from file
RequestBody requestFile =
RequestBody.create(MediaType.parse("image/*"), imageFile);
Log.d(LOG_TAG, "formed file");
// finally, execute the request
Call<ResponseBody> call = service.uploadProfilePicture(requestFile);
Log.d(LOG_TAG, "sending call");
call.enqueue(new Callback<ResponseBody>() {
#Override
public void onResponse(Call<ResponseBody> call,
Response<ResponseBody> response) {
Log.d(LOG_TAG, "success");
Log.d(LOG_TAG, response.toString());
}
#Override
public void onFailure(Call<ResponseBody> call, Throwable t) {
Log.d(LOG_TAG, "failure");
Log.e(LOG_TAG, t.getMessage());
}
});
Is the issue with the MediaType.parse method? I've tried "multipart/form-data", "image/jpeg", and the above as well and nothing has worked.
The server team has said they are receiving the call, just as bytes and no image file.
I keep getting a 400 because it's sending all bytes. How can I just send this? Do I need to send as a multipart or what? From what I've seen, you just need to tag the param in the method with #Body and do the above and it should all work. Can anybody tell me why this is happening? Thanks!
This is a known issue in Retrofit 2.
Edit: Support for OkHttp's MultipartBody.Part has been added in the final 2.0 release.
In order to get it working, you need to change your interface a little bit first:
#Multipart
#POST("upload_profile_picture")
Call<ResponseBody> uploadProfilePicture(#Part MultipartBody.Part file);
Then you have to create the Part and make the call like this:
MultipartBody.Part file = MultipartBody.Part.createFormData(
"file",
imageFile.getName(),
RequestBody.create(MediaType.parse("image/*"), imageFile));
Call<ResponseBody> call = service.uploadProfilePicture(file);
I have an http module where I'm adding a response filter below for compression. This works for all API calls except for 1, the call to MetaData. If I remove the [BreezeController] decoration it works fine. I think it has to do with action filter attribute that converts the string return type into an HttpResponse return type with string content.
The error I'm getting is " Exception message: The stream state of the underlying compression routine is inconsistent."
I've done some testing where a method thats defined to return an HttpResponse works fine. So I think its the scenario where the method is defined to return string, and then the action filter changes it to HttpResponse at runtime.
Any ideas how I can get this to work?
Here's the response filter being added in BeginRequest:
HttpApplication app = (HttpApplication)sender;
// Check the header to see if it can accept compressed output
string encodings = app.Request.Headers.Get("Accept-Encoding");
if (encodings == null)
return;
Stream s = app.Response.Filter;
encodings = encodings.ToLower();
if (encodings.Contains("gzip"))
{
app.Response.Filter = new GZipStream(s, CompressionMode.Compress);
app.Response.AppendHeader("Content-Encoding", "gzip");
}
Don't know the specifics of what you're doing but I know that the [BreezeController] attribute strips out filters and adds back just the ones that breeze wants.
One approach might be to define a separate controller (ModelMetadataController) that only serves the metadata. This controller doesn't have the [BreezeController] attribute; it's a plain old Web API controller.
Then you create a "Breeze controller" (ModelController) with all of the usual methods except the Metadata method.
You call the metadata controller from the client during app launch via MetadataStore.fetchMetadata just to get metadata.
Once you have populated a metadataStore in this fashion, you use it in your EntityManager which sends query and save requests to the "real" Web API data controller.
The client code might look something like this:
var ds = new breeze.DataService({
serviceName: 'breeze/Model' // the breeze query & save controller
});
var ms = new MetadataStore({
namingConvention: breeze.NamingConvention.camelCase, // assuming that's what you want
});
ms.addDataService(ds); // associate the metadata-to-come with the "real" dataService
var manager = new breeze.EntityManager({
dataService: ds,
metadataStore: ms
});
// the fun bit: fetch the metadata from a different controller
var promise = ms.fetchMetadata('breeze/ModelMetadata') // the metadata-only controller!
return promise; // wait on it appropriately
Part of my application needs to act as a Proxy Server for a third party RESTful web service. Is there a way to set up Web API routing so that all requests of the same type will go to the same method?
For example, if the client sends in either of these GET requests I want them to go into a single GET action method that then sends on the request to the downstream server.
api/Proxy/Customers/10045
api/Proxy/Customers/10045/orders
api/Proxy/Customers?lastname=smith
The single action method for GET would pick up any one of these three requests and send them on to the respective service (I know how to work with HttpClient to make that happen effectively):
http://otherwebservice.com/Customers/10045
http://otherwebservice.com/Customers/10045/orders
http://otherwebservice.com/Customers?lastname=smith
I don't want to have to tightly couple my web service to the third party web service and replicate their entire API as method calls inside mine.
One workaround that I have thought of is to simply encode the target URL in JavaScript on the client and pass this into the Web API which will then only see one parameter. It would work, but I'd prefer to use the routing capabilities in Web API if possible.
Here's how I got this to work. First, create a controller with a method for each verb you want to support:
public class ProxyController : ApiController
{
private Uri _baseUri = new Uri("http://otherwebservice.com");
public async Task<HttpResponseMessage> Get(string url)
{
}
public async Task<HttpResponseMessage> Post(string url)
{
}
public async Task<HttpResponseMessage> Put(string url)
{
}
public async Task<HttpResponseMessage> Delete(string url)
{
}
}
The methods are async because they're going to use an HttpClient. Map your route like this:
config.Routes.MapHttpRoute(
name: "Proxy",
routeTemplate: "api/Proxy/{*url}",
defaults: new { controller = "Proxy" });
Now back to the Get method in the controller. Create an HttpClient object, create a new HttpRequestMessage object with the appropriate Url, copy everything (or almost everything) from the original request message, then call SendAsync():
public async Task<HttpResponseMessage> Get(string url)
{
using (var httpClient = new HttpClient())
{
string absoluteUrl = _baseUri.ToString() + "/" + url + Request.RequestUri.Query;
var proxyRequest = new HttpRequestMessage(Request.Method, absoluteUrl);
foreach (var header in Request.Headers)
{
proxyRequest.Headers.Add(header.Key, header.Value);
}
return await httpClient.SendAsync(proxyRequest, HttpCompletionOption.ResponseContentRead);
}
}
The URL combining could be more sophisticated, but that's the basic idea.
For the Post and Put methods, you'll also need to copy the request body
Also please note a HttpCompletionOption.ResponseContentRead parameter passed in SendAsync call, because without it, ASP.NET will spend an exremeley long time reading the content if the content is large (in my case, it changed a 500KB 100ms request into a 60s request).
I am trying to get notified when an user subscribes to a stomp user destination using #SubscribeMapping annotation. My ideia is to send some initialization data to when it joins.
Although i am not being able to get this working:
Javascript:
stompClient.subscribe('/user/monitor', function(msg) {
console.log(msg);
});
Java side:
#SubscribeMapping("/monitor-user{clientId}")
public void init(#DestinationVariable("clientId") String clientId) {
messagingTemplate.convertAndSend("/user/" + clientId + "/monitor", getOps());
}
I tried many mapping combinations such as "/user/monitor-{clientId}", "/user/monitor" (Removing clientId), no success at all.
What is the expected mapping value so this get called?
Thank you!
Since the client subscribes to the "/user/monitor" queue, the server #SubscribeMapping annotation must be to "/user/monitor" and not to "/user/monitor{something}".
The server can understand what client is depending on your authentication scheme. If you use a sockjs websocket you can use HTTP authentication, and hence leverage Spring Security, and add a "Principal" parameter to your function that will hold user information:
#SubscribeMapping("/monitor")
public void init(Principal p) {
String user = p.getName();
messagingTemplate.convertAndSendToUser(user, "/monitor", getOps());
}
If you don't use http authentication you may send the server the user info, for example adding a custom STOMP header that can be accessed from the server using a SimpMessageHeaderAccessor:
#SubscribeMapping("/monitor")
public void init(SimpMessageHeaderAccessor accessor) {
String user = accessor.getFirstNativeHeader("userid");
messagingTemplate.convertAndSendToUser(user, "/monitor", getOps());
}
Another way could be to subscribe to a different queue name which contains the user information (and this maybe was your proposal). The client must use a code similar to:
stompClient.subscribe('/topic/byUser/'+userId, function(msg) {
console.log(msg);
});
so that the server can access it this way:
#SubscribeMapping("/byUser/{userId}")
public void init(#DestinationVariable String userId) {
messagingTemplate.convertAndSendToUser(userId, "/monitor", getOps());
}
but in this case keep in mind that that queue is public and hence other clients can access their messages if they knows other client names.