Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

REST API #535

Merged
merged 78 commits into from
Aug 15, 2018
Merged

REST API #535

merged 78 commits into from
Aug 15, 2018

Conversation

NebriBlackwing
Copy link
Member

The big heavy development work is now done and ready for it's first review round.

I'm planning on writing a series of unit tests against the Api Controllers, and after doing the rebase a bunch of unit tests that were passing are no longer. I'll start taking a look at these units tests later this weekend.

When this PR gets merged it will close Issue #83

@juliusknorr juliusknorr added this to the 0.5.0 milestone Jul 14, 2018
@juliusknorr juliusknorr changed the title Feature/83/json api REST API Jul 14, 2018
@NebriBlackwing
Copy link
Member Author

@juliushaertl I've managed to reduce the number of errors that were happening with the units tests down to 1. It was pretty simple, phpunit removed setExpectedException and replaced it with a new function. Here's my reference: Roave/BetterReflection#170

The last error is eluding me at the moment, mind giving insights on how to proceed past that error? I'll be starting my own unit tests against the new API real soon :).

['name' => 'board_api#undo_delete', 'url' => '/api/v1.0/boards/{boardId}/undo_delete', 'verb' => 'POST'],

['name' => 'stack_api#index', 'url' => '/api/v1.0/boards/{boardId}/stacks', 'verb' => 'GET'],
['name' => 'stack_api#index', 'url' => '/api/v1.0/boards/{boardId}/stacks/{stackId}', 'verb' => 'GET'],
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Shouldn't that be handled by stack_api#get

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yup! a simple copy/paste oversight!


class ApiHelper {

public static function entityHasError($entityId, $entityName, $service) {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we can remove the static keyword, since we will always call this on an object due to dependency injection.


$stack = $this->service->find($this->request->params['stackId']);

if ($stack == false || $stack == null) {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

=== instead of ==


$stack = $this->service->delete($this->request->params['stackId']);

if ($stack == false || $stack == null) {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

=== instead of ==

return $error;
}

return false;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Probably better to return an empty array then, so we can have proper return type hints once we have PHP 7.0 as a minimum.

return new DataResponse('card id must be a number', HTTP::STATUS_BAD_REQUEST);
}

$card = $this->cardService->find($this->request->params['cardId']);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Something more general regarding the service classes. They actually throw various exceptions that come from either the permissionService or the db mappers. Sorry those are not correctly documented in the phpDoc comments. So we need to either add a try/catch block here or extend the service methods to return null in case there is no enity found.

Another approach would be to have a middleware for the API that catches the exceptions and returns a 404 for DoesNotExistException for example.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Which would you prefer? I'm usually all for the try { catch } blocks as it makes the code that much more clear / self documenting, typically avoiding exactly this kind of scenario. I did a test for (false || null) just as a starting point.

All the services are able to throw these exceptions?

Copy link
Member

@juliusknorr juliusknorr Jul 15, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, that makes sense. Let's go that way. Basically they all throw exceptions based on the mapper, but I can push some commit to add proper annotations later, if that helps.

@juliusknorr
Copy link
Member

@Nebri I quickly pushed a commit to fix the one failing test.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 15, 2018

Codecov Report

Merging #535 into master will decrease coverage by 3.65%.
The diff coverage is 61.09%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #535      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   79.12%   75.46%   -3.66%     
==========================================
  Files          46       52       +6     
  Lines        1643     1969     +326     
==========================================
+ Hits         1300     1486     +186     
- Misses        343      483     +140

@juliusknorr
Copy link
Member

@Nebri Any another one to add the exception annotations. At some point it would probably be a good idea to catch the database exceptions in the service classes and throw exceptions that better show what exactly went wrong.

E.g. for the CardServce::update method we currently have:
NoPermissionException which is fine
StatusException if the board or card is archived
MultipleObjectsReturnedException|DoesNotExistException if the query for the card goes wrong: Controllers don't need to know about that, a NotFoundException for the cardId would be the best here I guess.

Would that make sense from your POV?

@NebriBlackwing
Copy link
Member Author

MultipleObjectsReturnedException|DoesNotExistException if the query for the card goes wrong: Controllers don't need to know about that, a NotFoundException for the cardId would be the best here I guess.

Yup That makes perfect sense to me! 👍

@NebriBlackwing
Copy link
Member Author

NebriBlackwing commented Jul 15, 2018

@juliushaertl Mind taking a look over my commit: ede2144? Getting a bit lost in the weeds on mocking up a unit test that will cause the permissions to fail, and throw the permission exception. Once I figure that out, I'll be able to make a test to ensure the proper DataResponse is generated.

I commented out the code segment I'm struggling with, and labelled it as a place of dragons ;)

@NebriBlackwing
Copy link
Member Author

NebriBlackwing commented Jul 16, 2018

@juliushaertl

The board service should throw a NoPermissionEyception for this test case. Since we're unit testing there is no need to check if the PermissionService method is called. We can just assume that this is handled correctly.

Is this true for all the exceptions that could be occuring in the rest api? I've taken a look at SharingMiddleware and I've noticed it's taking exceptions and returning out json responses.

if you look at the Board / Stack api controllers I've defined, I'm also trying to build the same json responses using the DataResponse class. Am I essentially creating duplicating code that I don't need to?

The rest api code branch so far is almost at 2,000 lines, and based on our discussions this is seeming to get out of hand. Want to make 100% sure I'm not wasting effort re-inventing the wheel here :).

@juliusknorr
Copy link
Member

juliusknorr commented Jul 16, 2018

Is this true for all the exceptions that could be occuring in the rest api? I've taken a look at SharingMiddleware and I've noticed it's taking exceptions and returning out json responses.

Yes, at least for the NoPermissionException, which is a StatusException that is catched by the Middleware.

if you look at the Board / Stack api controllers I've defined, I'm also trying to build the same json responses using the DataResponse class. Am I essentially creating duplicating code that I don't need to?

You can get rid of those checks https://github.com/nextcloud/deck/pull/535/files#diff-aa1cba99409af542c6b24c8140e1415bR115

The middleware will automatically return a JSONResponse for any StatusException that is thrown in a controller.

We probably should also move the other checks to the services and just throw a StatusException for those as well, but I need to think about that a bit.

@NebriBlackwing
Copy link
Member Author

Alright I'm going to pause work on this branch until we have a solid plan of attack for how to handle these exceptions, as it greatly affects the complexity and location of the relevant unit tests.

@NebriBlackwing
Copy link
Member Author

@juliushaertl This is ready for another review round.

namespace OCA\Deck;

use OCP\AppFramework\Http;
class BadRequestException extends \Exception {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

extend from StatusException so we don't need an additional check for that in the Middleware.

@@ -59,7 +60,7 @@ public function __construct(ILogger $logger, IConfig $config) {
* @throws \Exception
*/
public function afterException($controller, $methodName, \Exception $exception) {
if ($exception instanceof StatusException) {
if ($exception instanceof StatusException || $exception instanceof BadRequestException) {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Not needed if BadRequestException is a StatusException.

* Create a new label
*/
public function create($title, $color) {
$label = $this->labelService->create($title, $color, $this->request->getParam('boardId'));
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We still need some checks as in the other services here as well 😉

@juliusknorr
Copy link
Member

@Nebri Looks good from the Service/Controller separation now.

Some things we still need endpoints for, or maybe we can adjust the current ones to offer an option for are:

  • Card: Assign/unassign labels
  • Card: Assign/unassign users
  • Card: reorder
  • Stacks: fetch archived
  • Attachments

I'd be fine if we obmit the following for the first version of the API:

  • Board: add/update/delete acl (the first api version should be fine without sharing/updating the permissions)

But it would of course nice to also have those 😉

@NebriBlackwing
Copy link
Member Author

Of course, let's do it right! I have no intention of rushing this. I've been taking job interviews this week, next week is looking clear for the moment.

@NebriBlackwing
Copy link
Member Author

@juliushaertl I've just written the attachments api. I'm assuming that we also want to go through the services to put in the BadRequestException across the board?

I'd also like to request that we do the acl permissions in a separate issue. I'd like to keep the scope creep in check. Let's fix anything that may still be outstanding here, get it merged, and then build the permissions on top.

let me know what you think.

@juliusknorr
Copy link
Member

I'm assuming that we also want to go through the services to put in the BadRequestException across the board?

That would be good yes.

I'd also like to request that we do the acl permissions in a separate issue. I'd like to keep the scope creep in check. Let's fix anything that may still be outstanding here, get it merged, and then build the permissions on top.

Sure, we can do this later on. Maybe you can just create an issue for that, so we don't forget about it. That will also make it a bit easier to review then. Better have several small steps there 😉

@srbaker
Copy link
Collaborator

srbaker commented Jul 30, 2018

Heya, thanks for jumping on this. @Nebri Every time I had planned to work on it, something else came up, and I just got stuck. Really glad to see this moving along!

Ryan Fletcher and others added 23 commits August 15, 2018 21:15
…tests in BoardApiController

Signed-off-by: Ryan Fletcher <[email protected]>
…odacy complexity rules by a lot. Also moved validation checks into respective services.

Signed-off-by: Ryan Fletcher <[email protected]>
… extending StatusException

Signed-off-by: Ryan Fletcher <[email protected]>
…ntApicontroller. Trying out test driven development.

Signed-off-by: Ryan Fletcher <[email protected]>
… DefaultBoardService BadRequestException checks.

Signed-off-by: Ryan Fletcher <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Julius Härtl <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Julius Härtl <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants