I'm using Jersey, and Guice as my IOC-container. I'd like to know if it is possible to associate an ExceptionMapper with a specific URI. The reason for this is that I want to map the same exception differently based on what URI was visited. For example, suppose I've got the following two exception mappers for my custom exception:
public class MyExceptionMapperForFirstURI implements
ExceptionMapper<MyException> {..return response based on first URI..}
public class MyExceptionMapperForSecondURI implements
ExceptionMapper<MyException> {..return response based on second URI..}
As far as I understand you bind an ExceptionMapper in your ServletModule as follows:
public class MyModule extends ServletModule {
#Override
public void configureServlets() {
super.configureServlets();
bind(MyCustomExceptionMapper.class);
}
}
How would I go about binding MyExceptionMapperForFirstURI and MyExceptionMapperForSecondURI so that they get associated with the correct URIs. Is this possible, and if possible: is this the correct way to do this?
This is quite late answer ;-) but you can always inject the UriInfo and branch on that. So,
#Context
UriInfo uriInfo;
.....
if (matchesA(uriInfo.getAbsolutePath())) {
// do something
}
Not sure how the URI's of your app look like, but if it is possible to split your app into two servlets or filters, then you can do it like that - i.e. have one servlet/filter serve one set of resources and include the first mapper and have the other servlet/filter serve the other set of resources and include the other mapper.
If these are custom exceptions, you can also pass Request as an argument to the exception and have just a single mapper - decide on the response based in the request uri in the mapper.
Related
I do have some entity class (code without annotations for simplified example)
class User {
public String id;
public String name;
}
Now I want to output this via an API, but I want to structure my response in a special format, like
{
"data": {
"id": 1,
"name": "mars3142"
}, // user object or another entity or list...
"meta": ...,
"error": ...
}
The meta and/or error data should only be visible in special situations (like RuntimeExceptions). Where is the best place to transform my entity results into the normalized response? Do I need to write a filter for that? Does anybody has a sample code for that?
I would suggest to implement something this:
public abstract class BaseResponse {
// Meta data
// Consider defining fields here needed for happy-path and error-responses
// Contains common tracking fields, e.g. correlationId, requestId
}
public class ErrorResponse extends BaseResponse {
// Error Fields
}
public class Response extends ErrorResponse {
// Entity-object in your case
}
I guess you can build your response like setting response from DAO to above suggested structure in controller layer. For error-responses (in case of RuntimeExceptions), they're standardly build and returned in #ControllerAdvice or other.
Some patterns of exception handling are explained in Error Handling for REST with Spring | Baeldung.
Regarding your 2 questions:
Design: The proper place for this response-mapping depends on the scope (all responses or just some) and existing components in your application's response layer.
Patterns and Web-Framework concepts: I would not use the response-filters or -interceptors of your web-framework. Those should be used for cross-cutting concerns, or for chained processes (e.g. security, authorization, enrichment, sanitation).
Instead I would use the web-frameworks concepts and components that are responsible for response-representations, like ResponseEntity (HTTP-response representation, ControllerAdvice (error-handling), HttpMessageConverter.
There are 3 ways you could "wrap" your objects into uniform JSON-response models:
Annotate class with the custom #JsonRootName as data and in special cases add meta and/or error attributes (through e.g. embedding into a wrapper or using a mixin)
A JSON custom serializer that could extend from BeanSerializer which wraps this and any class uniformly in your given outer structure
Modify Spring's MappingJackson2HttpMessageConverter to wrap any returned response object into the predefined JSON-structure
You could iterate from the simplest (1.) to the most complex (3.). Some iteration code (like 2.) can be reused in the next (3.).
1. Use a Wrapper Class
The first is rather a simple start where you can implement the "normalization" within controller-methods. You could for example put the object (serialized as data) into the "empty" meta-structure (wrapper-class) with an empty JsonNode, and meta or error properties.
2. Define a Custom Serializer
The second is pretty flexible and can be tested well in isolation (not even depending on Spring). It would allow to implement the complete object-wrapping in one place.
3. Customize Spring's HTTP Message Converter
The third is similar to the second but requires some knowledge about Spring's message-converters and allows you to transform each response-object to a specific JSON-response using Jackson's ObjectMapper.
Sample code can be found online, e.g. at Baeldung's Jackson or Spring tutorials, Springframework Guru articles.
I used the solution from https://stackoverflow.com/a/72355056/708157 and transformed it a little bit.
Now my classes are that way
public class BaseResponse<T> {
boolean success;
T data;
Error error;
}
public class Error {
...
}
And every api response is now ResponseEntity<BaseResponse<XYZ>>. This way, I can setup my default structure and my classes are lose coupled, because I can use every class for T within my BaseResponse.
I'm building a Quarkus app which handles http requests with resteasy and calls another api with restclient and I need to propagate a header and add another one on the fly so I added a class that implements ClientHeadersFactory.
Here's the code:
#ApplicationScoped
public abstract class MicroServicesHeaderHandler implements ClientHeadersFactory {
#Inject
MicroServicesConfig config;
#Override
public MultivaluedMap<String, String> update(MultivaluedMap<String, String> incomingHeaders,
MultivaluedMap<String, String> clientOutgoingHeaders) {
// Will be merged with outgoing headers
return new MultivaluedHashMap<>() {{
put("Authorization", Collections.singletonList("Bearer " + config.getServices().get(getServiceName()).getAccessToken()));
put("passport", Collections.singletonList(incomingHeaders.getFirst("passport")));
}};
}
protected abstract String getServiceName();
My issue is that the injection of the config doesn't work. I tried both with #Inject and #Context, as mentioned in the javadoc of ClientHeadersFactory. I also tried to make the class non abstract but it doesn't change anything.
MicroServicesConfig is a #Startup bean because it needs to be initialized before Quarkus.run() is called, otherwise the hot reload doesn't work anymore, since it's required to handle requests.
Here's the code FYI:
#Getter
#Startup
#ApplicationScoped
public final class MicroServicesConfig {
private final Map<String, MicroService> services;
MicroServicesConfig(AKV akv, ABS abs) {
// some code to retrieve an encrypted file from a secure storage, decrypt it and initialize the map out of it
}
It appears to be an issue with ClientHeadersFactory because if I inject my bean in my main class (#QuarkusMain), it works. I'm then able to assign the map to a public static map that I can then access from my HeaderHandler with Application.myPublicStaticMap but that's ugly so I would really prefer to avoid that.
I've searched online and saw several people having the same issue but according to this blogpost, or this one, it should work as of Quarkus 1.3 and MicroProfile 3.3 (RestClient 1.4) and I'm using Quarkus 1.5.2.
Even the example in the second link doesn't work for me with the injection of UriInfo so the issue doesn't come from the bean I'm trying to inject.
I've been struggling with this for weeks and I'd really like to get rid of my workaround now.
I'm probably just missing something but it's driving me crazy.
Thanks in advance for your help.
This issue has finally been solved in Quarkus 1.8.
I am having two implementations of my component.
public interface MyComponent {
}
imple1
#Component("impCompf")
#Lazy
#RequestScope
public class ImpComp1 implements MyComponent {
}
imple2
#Component("impComps")
#Lazy
#RequestScope
public class ImpComp2 implements MyComponent {
}
What I did so far is to create two conditions like so:
imple1
public class FirstCondition implements Condition {
#Override
public boolean matches(ConditionContext arg0, AnnotatedTypeMetadata arg1) {
return staticVariable.contains("impCompf");
}
}
Same goes for imple2
and define a configuration class
#Configuration
public class MyConfiguration {
#Bean
#Conditional(FirstCondition .class)
#Primary
public MyComponent getComp1() {
return new ImpComp1();
}
public static String staticVariable= "impCompf";
and in My main controller:
#RequestMapping(value="api/{co}", method=RequestMethod.POST)
public ResponseEntity<Modelx> postSe(#PathVariable("co") String co) {
if(co.contains("impCompf"))
staticVariable = "impCompf";
else (co.contains("impComps"))
staticVariable = "impComps";
What I want: for every http request I want to load proper implementation
But however what I am getting is the implementation defined first in the static variable.
If is there another elegant and better way, i'd like to know about it.
I think there is some confusion here about the purpose of the conditions. These aren't being used at the time your requests arrive to autowire the candidate bean into your controller. These are being used when the application is started to configure the application context based on the environment and classpath etc...
There is no need for the conditional classes that you have created. This is defining the configuration of the beans when the context starts and not on a per request basis at runtime.
The use of the static variable is also problematic is a scenario with one or more concurrent requests or in a case where multiple threads may observe different values unless some other mechanism in the java memory model is being used (such as volatile or establishing a happens before relationship, e.g. with sychnronized)
There are a number of ways to do what you appear to be trying to achieve. Since ultimately, you appear to be using a path parameter supplied by a client to determine which service you want to invoke you could use a classic factory pattern to return the correct interface implementation based on the string input programmatically.
Alternatively you could create two distinct controller methods which are distinguished by a query parameter or endpoint name or path match etc. You could then have the appropriate service injected by a qualified bean name
Although perhaps generally recommended, you could also inject an application context instance and search the it looking for the relevant bean by name or class: https://brunozambiazi.wordpress.com/2016/01/16/getting-spring-beans-programmatically/ - although This is more cumbersome and you'd need to handle things like org.springframework.beans.factory.NoSuchBeanDefinitionException or casting in some cases - best avoided in favour of one of the other methods.
I have a straightforward test case. I have a controller which has a parameter of a type Spring doesn't support by default, so I wrote a custom resolver.
I create the mock mvc instance I'm using like so:
mvc = MockMvcBuilders.standaloneSetup(controller).setCustomArgumentResolvers(new GoogleOAuthUserResolver()).build();
However, Spring is also registering almost 30 other argument resolvers, one of which is general enough that it is getting used to resolve the argument before mine. How can I set or sort the resolvers so that mine is invoked first?
This worked for me without reflection:
#RequiredArgsConstructor
#Configuration
public class CustomerNumberArgumentResolverRegistration {
private final RequestMappingHandlerAdapter requestMappingHandlerAdapter;
#PostConstruct
public void prioritizeCustomArgumentResolver () {
final List<HandlerMethodArgumentResolver> argumentResolvers = new ArrayList<>(Objects.requireNonNull(requestMappingHandlerAdapter.getArgumentResolvers()));
argumentResolvers.add(0, new CustomerNumberArgumentResolver());
requestMappingHandlerAdapter.setArgumentResolvers(argumentResolvers);
}
}
The issue was that the People class the Google OAuth library I am using extends Map and the mock servlet API provides no way to manipulate the order in which the handlers are registered.
I ended up using reflection to reach into the mocks guts and remove the offending handler.
Please find my HomeController and DemoController
class HomeController{
#RequestMapping(value="index")
public void home(){
}
}
class DemoController{
#RequestMapping(value="index")
public void demo(){
}
}
when I try to send a request to index, which one will get executed?
I wanted to know how can we have same request mapping value for multiple controllers
https://stackoverflow.com/a/34590355/2682499 is only partially correct at this point.
You can have multiple controller methods use the same URI so long as you provide Spring enough additional information on which one it should use. Whether or not you should do this is a different question. I would certainly not recommend using the same URI in two separate controller classes to avoid confusion, though.
You can do something like this:
class HomeController{
#RequestMapping(value="/index", params = {"!name", "!foo"})
public List<Something> listItems(){
// retrieve Something list
}
#RequestMapping(value="/index", params = "name")
public List<Something> listItems(String name) {
// retrieve Something list WHERE name LIKE %name%
}
#RequestMapping(value="/index", params = {"!name", "foo"})
public List<Something> listItems(String foo) {
// Do something completely different
}
}
For the full documentation on what is possible when overloading URIs you should reference the #ReqeustMapping documentation: https://docs.spring.io/spring/docs/current/javadoc-api/org/springframework/web/bind/annotation/RequestMapping.html. And, specifically https://docs.spring.io/spring/docs/current/javadoc-api/org/springframework/web/bind/annotation/RequestMapping.html#params-- for the section request parameters.
In Spring Web MVC this is not possible. Each mapping must be unique in your context. If not, you will receive a RuntimeException during context initialization.
You cannot even use parameters to differentiate your endpoints because they are not evaluated while searching for a suitable handler (applicable for Servlet environments). From #RequestMapping javadoc:
In a Servlet environment, parameter mappings are considered as restrictions that are enforced at the type level. The primary path mapping (i.e. the specified URI value) still has to uniquely identify the target handler, with parameter mappings simply expressing preconditions for invoking the handler.
Note that you can do the opposite, so multiple URLs can point to the same handler. Have a look at Spring MVC: Mapping Multiple URLs to Same Controller
Unfortunately, this is not possible. The request mapping has to be unique otherwise the application can't determine which method the incoming request should be mapped to.
What you can do instead is to extend the request mapping:
class HomeController{
#RequestMapping(value="home/index")
public void home(){
}
}
class DemoController{
#RequestMapping(value="demo/index")
public void demo(){
}
}