I have a simple implementation of custom protocol. It's said that newURI method takes 3 arguments (spec, charset & baseURI) and "if the protocol has no concept of relative URIs, third parameter is ignored".
So i open a page like this tada://domain/samplepage which has XML starting with this:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE Product SYSTEM "product.dtd">
But i don't see any request regarding product.dtd to my protocol (newURI is not even called). Do i miss smth in my implementation?
BTW: the page itself opens correctly, but there's no request to the DTD-file.
const
Cc = Components.classes,
Ci = Components.interfaces,
Cr = Components.results,
Cu = Components.utils,
nsIProtocolHandler = Ci.nsIProtocolHandler;
Cu.import("resource://gre/modules/XPCOMUtils.jsm");
function TadaProtocol() {
}
TadaProtocol.prototype = {
scheme: "tada",
protocolFlags: nsIProtocolHandler.URI_DANGEROUS_TO_LOAD,
newURI: function(aSpec, aOriginCharset, aBaseURI) {
let uri = Cc["#mozilla.org/network/simple-uri;1"].createInstance(Ci.nsIURI);
uri.spec = (aBaseURI === null)
? aSpec
: aBaseURI.resolve(aSpec);
return uri;
},
newChannel: function(aURI) {
let
ioService = Cc["#mozilla.org/network/io-service;1"].getService(Ci.nsIIOService),
uri = ioService.newURI("chrome://my-extension/content/about/product.xml", null, null);
return ioService.newChannelFromURI(uri);
},
classDescription: "Sample Protocol Handler",
contractID: "#mozilla.org/network/protocol;1?name=tada",
classID: Components.ID('{1BC90DA3-5450-4FAF-B6FF-F110BB73A5EB}'),
QueryInterface: XPCOMUtils.generateQI([Ci.nsIProtocolHandler])
}
let NSGetFactory = XPCOMUtils.generateNSGetFactory([TadaProtocol]);
The channel you return from newChannel has the chrome:// URI you passed to newChannelFromURI as its URI. So that's the URI the page has as its URI, and as its base URI. So the DTD load happens from "chrome://my-extension/content/about/product.dtd" directly.
What you probably want to do is to set aURI as the originalURI on the channel you return from newChannel.
As Boris mentioned in his answer, your protocol implementation doesn't set nsIChannel.originalURI property so that URLs will be resolved relative to the chrome: URL and not relative to your tada: URL. There is a second issue with your code however: in Firefox loading external DTDs only works with chrome: URLs, this check is hardcoded. There is a limited number of supported DTDs that are mapped to local files (various HTML doctypes) but that's it - Gecko doesn't support random URLs in <!DOCTYPE>. You can see the current logic in the source code. The relevant bug is bug 22942 which isn't going to be fixed.
Boris and Wladimir, thank you!
After some time i have a solution. The problem was that the DTD-file could not be loaded from my custom-created protocol. The idea was to use Proxy API to override schemeIs() method, which was called in newURI method of nsIProtocolHandler.
So now i have this snippet of code in newURI method:
let standardUrl = Cc["#mozilla.org/network/standard-url;1"].createInstance(Ci.nsIStandardURL);
standardUrl.init(standardUrl.URLTYPE_STANDARD, -1, spec, charset, baseURI);
standardUrl.QueryInterface(Ci.nsIURL);
return Proxy.create(proxyHandlerMaker(standardUrl));
proxyHandlerMaker just implements Proxy API and overrides the needed schemeIs() method. This solved the problem and now all the requests come to newChannel where we can handle them.
Important notes:
Request to DTD comes to newURI() method and does not come to newChannel(). This is the default behavior. This happens because schemeIs("chrome") method is called on the object which was returned by newURI() method. This method should return "true" for DTD-requests if you want the request to reach the newChannel() method.
newChannel() method is invoked with the {nsIURI} object which is not the same as the object which was returned by the newURI method.
If you want to handle both protocol:page & protocol://domain/page URLs by your protocol, you should use both {nsIURI} and {nsIStandardURL} objects
You can pass the created {nsIStandardUrl}-object (standardUrl in the snippet above) as a 2nd argument to the Proxy.create() function. This will make your baseURI (3rd arguments in newURI) pass "baseURI instanceof nsIStandardUrl" check. SchemeIs() method of this proxied object will also return true for the DTD-files requests. But unfortunately the requests won't reach newChannel() method. This could be a nice DTD-problem solution but I can't solve this problem.
Related
I have implemented content negotiation so that a specific serializer will be used based on the accept header:
XmlFormatter fmtXml = new XmlFormatter();
fmtXml.SupportedMediaTypes.Add(new
System.Net.Http.Headers.MediaTypeHeaderValue("text/xml"));
JsonFormatter fmtJson = new JsonFormatter();
fmtJson.SupportedMediaTypes.Add(new System.Net.Http.Headers.MediaTypeHeaderValue("application/json"));
config.Formatters.Insert(0, fmtJson);
config.Formatters.Insert(0, fmtXml);
I need to allow a client to specify the desired format using a url parameter, which would take precedence over the accept header.
To do this, I've started subclassing the DefaultContentNegogiator (although I don't know that it's the best idea.:
public class CustomContentNegotiator : DefaultContentNegotiator
{
public override ContentNegotiationResult Negotiate(Type type, HttpRequestMessage request, IEnumerable<MediaTypeFormatter> formatters)
{
string sMimeType = HttpUtility.ParseQueryString(request.Url.Query).Get("_format");
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(sMimeType))
{
...
}
else
{
return base.Negotiate(type, request, formatters);
}
}
}
Then I replace the default content negotiator with mine:
GlobalConfiguration.Configuration.Services.Replace(typeof(IContentNegotiator), new CustomContentNegotiator());
The idea with the custom content negotiator is that if a content format has been specified as a url parameter, I would locate the formatter that matches, otherwise I would just fallback to the behavior of the DefaultContentNegotiator.
I'm just not sure how to match correctly on the supported media types, or if there is a better, simpler solution to this...
I determined that using a custom content negotiator was a red herring. Instead I was able to use a MediaTypeMapping which matches against a specific url parameter instead of the accept request header:
fmtJson.MediaTypeMappings.Add(new System.Net.Http.Formatting.QueryStringMapping("_format", "json", "application/json"));
I'm using the webRequest-API in a WebExtension to monitor requests made by the client. This works quite well, however the API doesn't behave as expected in case of a redirect:
In this case a POST is issued which is answered with a 302 FOUND and a new location. My browser (Firefox 57, other versions and other browsers - e.g. Chrome - act the same way) follows this redirect and now issues a GET to the new location.
Unfortunately the webRequest-API behaves differently: It traces the first POST (which is correct) but than handles the second request as a POST, too, whereas it should be a GET. This is a severe problem since the API traces something my browser supposedly did, which it actually did in another way...
This scenario (the browser-part) can be reproduced by following this link to surfnet.nl and choosing an IDP form the list (e.g. Academisch Medisch Centrum).
So, long story short: Why does the webRequest-API behave different form the way browsers behave? And is there a way to let it exactly trace the browser's actions?
Interestingly the webRequest-API might do it correctly, regarding the documentation:
Even if the specification requires the method, and the body, not to be altered when the redirection is performed, not all user-agents conform here [browsers obviously change the method!], and you can still find buggy software out there. It is therefore recommended to set the 302 code only as a response for GET or HEAD methods and to use 307 Temporary Redirect instead, as the method change is explicitly prohibited in that case.
In the cases where you want the method used to be changed to GET, use 303 See Other instead.
EDIT:
It seems as if browser change the method on a 302 due to historical reasons, even tho it contradicts RFC 2616...
https://stackoverflow.com/a/8139246/594832
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/httpbis/ticket/160
https://stackoverflow.com/a/8138447/594832
Anyways... the question remains: how can I induce the webRequest-API to act the same way?
For anyone interested, I ended up with the following:
The docs let me to this (redirectUrl):
[...] Redirects initiated by a redirect action use the original request method for the redirect, with one exception: If the redirect is initiated at the onHeadersReceived stage, then the redirect will be issued using the GET method. [...]
Although the statement above gave me some hope, the method of that redirected request was still labeled as a POST...
So I updated the code to something roughly like this:
// Keep track of all requests issued so far and their responses
var httpRequests = [];
// Redirected requests come in with their originating parents' ID
browser.webRequest.onBeforeRequest.addListener(request => {
// Check if the request is a redirect
var isRedirected = function(requestId) {
var parentRequest = httpRequests.find(r => r.req.requestId === requestId);
if (parentRequest != null && parentRequest.res != null && parentRequest.res.statusCode === 302) {
return true;
}
return false;
};
// The webRequest-API seems to keep the HTTP verbs which is correct in resepct to RFC 2616 but
// differs from a typical browser behaviour which will usually change the POST to a GET. So do we here...
if (request.method === 'POST' && isRedirected(request.requestId)) {
console.log(`Redirected 302-request '${request.requestId}' is a POST but is here changed to a GET to conform to browser behaviour...`);
request.method = 'GET';
}
// Store the request
var entry = {
id: id,
req: request
};
httpRequests.push(entry);
});
browser.webRequest.onHeadersReceived.addListener(response => {
// Store the response alongside the request
var entry = httpRequests.find(req => req.id === response.requestId);
entry.res = response;
// If it turns out that a request should be redirected...
if (response.statusCode === 302) {
var location = response.responseHeaders.find(header => header.name.toLowerCase() === "location");
console.log(`Redirecting request '${id}' to new location '${location.value}'...`);
// The new location is set as redirectUrl, which results in a new invocation of onBeforeRequest with
// the current requestId
return {
redirectUrl: location.value
};
}
});
What happens?
Say onBeforeRequest receives a new request 2640 which is a POST.
onHeadersReceived gets the response which says that this request should be redirected to a new location (302).
The code above does so by setting the redirectUrl to that new location.
Then onBeforeRequest is triggered again. The webRequest-API passes the same requestId to it (2640).
The code checks if there's a parent for this request, and in this case it's true.
The method (which is still POST) is then modified to GET.
For the request lifecycle have a look at the illustration in the docs.
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
I want to do an integration test for the below action.
How can I pass my requestDto object in the integration test?
Neither the GetAsync nor SendAsync method has an overload parameter to pass a custom object to the server.
[Route("{startDate:datetime}")]
[HttpGet]
public HttpResponseMessage Get(DateTime startDate, [FromBody]LessonplannerGetRequest request)
{
request.StartDate = startDate;
var lessonplannerResponse = _service.GetPeriodsByWeekStartDate(request);
return Request.CreateResponse<LessonplannerResponse>(HttpStatusCode.OK, lessonplannerResponse);
}
[Test]
public void Get_Lessons_By_Date()
{
// Arrange
var request = new HttpRequestMessage(HttpMethod.Get, _server.BaseAddress + "/api/lessonplanner/2014-01-14");
var myRequestDto = new LessonplannerGetRequest();
// Act => QUESTION: HOW do I pass the myRequestDto ???
var response = _client.SendAsync(request, new CancellationToken()).Result;
// Assert
Assert.That(response.StatusCode == HttpStatusCode.OK);
}
UPDATE
As Darrel Miller said:"Technically HTTP says you can send a body, it just says the body doesn't mean anything and cannot be used. HttpClient won't let you send one."
I post here my integration test with HttpClient doing a Get request with complex type + FromBody:
// Arrange
var request = new HttpRequestMessage(HttpMethod.Get, _server.BaseAddress + "/api/lessonplanner/2014-01-14");
var myRequestDto = new LessonplannerGetRequest{ FirstDayOfWeek = DayOfWeek.Sunday, SchoolyearId = 1, StartDate = DateTime.Today};
request.Content = new ObjectContent<LessonplannerGetRequest>(myRequestDto, new JsonMediaTypeFormatter());
request.Content.Headers.ContentType = new MediaTypeHeaderValue("application/json");
_client.DefaultRequestHeaders.Accept.Add(new MediaTypeWithQualityHeaderValue("application/json"));
// Act
var response = _client.SendAsync(request, new CancellationToken()).Result;
// Assert
Assert.That(response.StatusCode == HttpStatusCode.OK);
Of course is this is not the Http way some might consider doing it differentlly sending complex type via FromUri/query string.
HTML specifications says you cannot send a GET with a body.
HTTP specs allows it.
WebAPI allows it, because it is a service/REST and implements HTTP but not HTML, but many clients and browser won't allow it because they implement both specs and try to be strict.
As for the specifications (RFC1866, page 46; HTML 4.x section 17.13.3) itself, it states:
If the method is "get" and the action is an HTTP URI, the user agent takes the value of action, appends a `?' to it, then appends the form data set, encoded using the "application/x-www-form-urlencoded" content type.
(e.g. if you do a <form> with GET, it will parse all the form params and set them in the query string ?a=b).
In term of pure HTTP and in the context of REST services, nothing prevents that behavior, but not all clients will be able to handle it. It's mostly a best-practice advise when it comes to REST/WebAPI to not handle body data from HttpGet, only URI data (the opposite, POST /action?filter=all is usually tolerated for metadata/action qualifiers, but that's another discussion).
So yeah, it's at your own risk, even if used only internally. As not all clients handle it (e.g. HttpRequestMessage), so you might run into trouble like you have.
You should NOT pass a GET body with HTTPClient.
We've discovered a strange new bug in a GWT application I'm maintaining, and I'm not sure when it became an issue. Possibly with a new Firefox version.
We're sending a POST request to the server using a FormPanel, essentially like many examples I've seen online. But since we actually want a PUT request, one of the hidden input parameters is named "method" and has a value of "put".
Now, when I look at the request in Fiddler coming from Firefox, it is being transformed into a GET request with all the parameters in the QueryString. In IE and Chrome, the parameters are in the body of a POST request.
I've displayed the value of FormPanel.getMethod() in an alert, and in IE and Chrome the string "post" is displayed, whereas in firefox it is showing "object HTMLInputElement". Unfortunately, hosted mode debugging does not work with this project.
It obviously looks like the FormPanel's getMethod() function is returning the hidden input parameter named method instead of the actual form's method in Firefox.
Technically I should avoid changing the servlet as this is from an OpenSource project that we use, though I've found I can fix the issue by changing the hidden input parameter's name to "_method" on both ends.
Has anyone ever seen anything like this? I can't find anything in Google.
UPDATE: We're using GWT 2.3 in case that helps
Some insight can be found here Are the PUT, DELETE, HEAD, etc methods available in most web browsers?
I would also suggest using XMLHttpRequest. In this case you [most probably] don't have to change anything on the server side.
In case if you use Submit button, you can write in its clickHandler function:
submitMyForm(yourTextBox.getText(), self);
// self - is the instance of main class (named UploadForm here), needs to be passed here for future reference
and then some more (you can adapt this for your needs):
private native void submitMyForm(String text, UploadForm handler)/*-{
var fd = new FormData();
fd.append("textValue", text);
var xhr = new XMLHttpRequest();
var upload = xhr.upload;
readyStateChangeHandler = function () {
if (xhr.readyState == 4) {
if (xhr.status == 200) {
var serverResponse = eval(xhr.responseText); // optional
handler.#com.project.UploadForm::onUploadIsDone(Lcom/google/gwt/core/client/JavaScriptObject;)(serverResponse);
} else {
handler.#com.project.UploadForm::onUploadFailed(I)(status);
}
}
};
xhr.onreadystatechange = readyStateChangeHandler;
xhr.open("PUT", yourActionUrlHere);
xhr.send(formData);
}-*/;