If I create my httpBuilder as shown below (assume that a proxyUsername IS set, so setCredentials is called), then calls to httpAddress-es that are passed in properly are routed through the proxy. However, the Application has some http calls that are within the local network. Can http.nonProxyHosts be used to work around this and bypass the Proxy? If so, how? Use System.setProperty? Or something on HttpBuilder?
HTTPBuilder httpBuilder = new HTTPBuilder(httpAddress)
httpBuilder.setProxy(webProxyHost, webProxyPort, webProxyProtocol)
if (proxyUsername) {
httpBuilder.client.getCredentialsProvider().setCredentials(
new AuthScope(webProxyHost, webProxyPort),
new UsernamePasswordCredentials(proxyUsername, proxyPassword))
}
}
In the code above, all of the various named elements (webProxyHost, etc) are declared as String and set accordingly.
In answer to the question in the above comment, our primary 'nonProxyHost' need was for 'localhost' which is there by default. Thus this ceased to be an issue. Did not ever really find out how to accomplish this as it is somewhat version-specific on HttpClient.
You can set the System property:
System.setProperty('http.nonProxyHosts', myNonProxyHosts)
However, if you call 'setProxy' on HttpBuilder, even if you call 'useSystemProperties' it will not. This is in their documentation, just not obvious!
Finally, you might be able to call:
httpBuilder.client.params.setParameter('http.nonProxyHosts', myNonProxyHosts)
But I do not know for sure if that is the property name and documentation of those properties is hard to find. Worse - those 'params' are deprecated - you are supposed to use the better 'config' classes, though once again finding comprehensive documentation on all the parameters for that is not the easiest! Wish I could have been of more help!
Related
When moving my functions to .net5 I faced the fact that POCO binding that worked fine with 3.1 is not applicable with .net 5 anymore for some reason. They say it will be implemented at some point maybe, but for the certain reasons I need it now. Tried to find some hacky way to implement this, but failed. The best thought I had was to implement explicit operator in my DTO object which will cast HttpRequestData to it's type, but the problem is that HttpRequestData is an abstract type, and it's concrete implementation type is internal. After that I tried to cast the input parameter to HttpRequestData in middleware with reflection, but parameters are stored in IReadOnlyDictionary which is immutable. So I ran out of ideas now. Maybe someone found workaround to this and can kindly share, would be much appreciated.
I suppose you're using the "dotnet-isolated" mode (only way to run on .NET 5).
I'm trying to find a more elegant solution to this as well.
Meanwhile, what I did was to deserialize the data myself, inside the function.
var body = await new StreamReader(request.Body).ReadToEndAsync();
var myobject = JsonSerializer.Deserialize<MyPocoClass>(json);
I would really prefer if the runtime did it by itself, but I couln't find a way yet. I read somewhere that it is possible to create our own binding code, but I haven't tried it.
I noticed that I could bind to individual properties of the json payload, but not to an object...
I hope this arrives in Azure Functions v4 + .NET6, since it is right around the corner.
I'm pretty new to typescript and I faced the issue with extending the Request type. I actually found a solution, but it doesn't feel right to me, and seems like there might be a better way.
First, the structure. I have a middleware checkAuth that checks the Bearer token, finds the user in the database (or creates one, in case it's the first time) and adds user to the req variable.
Most people recommend modifying the Express' Request type with custom declarations. I don't like this idea, because that will put user object into all requests, even before I actually save user into req.
Another solution is what I use now:
interface ReqWithUser extends Request {
user?: {
...
}
}
This allows me to declare req: ReqWithUser. But there's a flaw. When I try to access req.user, typescript is telling me that it's possibly undefined. Well, that's exactly what I declared with user?:. If I don't put a question mark there, then typescript is mad in router, saying Property 'user' is missing in type Request. That's fair. One of the solution is to use req!.user. Solves all problems, but it still feels imperfect to me. I know the req.user is there, it's not optional, otherwise checkAuth would fail and return 401. If it didn't, the user is there. What feels like the right solution is somehow modify the req type after the checkAuth middleware. Because that's when user is added into the req. Is it possible?
The issue has nothing to do with your types, but it's the fact that Express will always emit Request and not RequestWithUser.
So in your middleware function, you will always get a Request. The only reason RequestWithUser is acceptable is because you made it optional.
Truth is the middleware / decorator pattern doesn't work that well with express. You have a few options (some of which you mentioned)
Use declaration merging to 'patch' the built-in Request. You already mentioned you don't like this though, because it's a bit of a hack.
Don't use Express' middleware system and instead write something that understands how types change with decorators. I don't know exactly what this looks like, or if this has been done before.
Whenever you want to use RequestWithUser in your controllers/middlewares start off with an assertion function to ensure that user exists (allowing you to make it non-optional).
Cast to RequestWithUser, when you need it.
All these options have drawbacks:
You don't like for the reasons mentioned. It's not always 'accurate' so you are sort of lying to Typescript for convenience.
Sounds hard to do
Requires the use of an assertion function, which means you need to do a little extra work every time you want to use the user property. This work is not needed because you as developer know.
You probably don't like casting for the same reason you don't like to use declaration merging.
By far I think 2 is the best solution, because it gives you the advantage of typing without any hacks and without having to do the extra work of an assertion function (which happens during runtime). But it means abandoning Express' Middleware system. I wouldn't know exactly how to write this code, but I am curious how if it can be done...
FYI I opened another stack overflow question, because I am curious:
Typescript typing for decorator middleware patterns
Is there any reason the Origen::Parameters sets do not have a public method for retrieving all of the possible set ids? I do see a public method that works, though it isn't named like it is meant to be used publicly. Why is this not more visible?
[6] pry(#<PPEKit::Product>)> $dut.func._parameter_sets.ids
=> [:default,
:func_default,
:func_harvest_default,
EDIT
#Ginty, I tried your suggestion but it doesn't return the keys I am looking for. In the first sentence in the Parameter docs, the keys I am looking for are referred to 'parameter contexts'. The reason these would be useful would be to do something like this:
my_param_key = :my_param_key
if Origen.top_level.func.has_context? my_param_key
...
Specifically, I am creating parameter contexts from the information in my flow file and would like to verify that they exist before trying to access them. Essentially it is a handshake between my test flow and the test method parameters I am storing using unique (hopefully) parameter IDs/contexts.
thx
In your example, dut.func.params should return a hash-like object which contains all the parameter sets, so to get the IDs is just: dut.func.params.keys
EDIT
I see now that you want a collection containing the available contexts, but it doesn't seem like that is currently provided via an API.
I don't think there is any particular reason for that, probably hasn't been needed until now.
params.context returns the currently active context, I would recommend we add params.contexts and/or params.available_contexts to return an array of the available context names.
Origen now supports knowing the available parameter contexts.
How to clean SSJS (Server Side Javascript) in Domino server after someone used javascript prototype in a nsf?
Mark Roden discovered a huge weakness in XPages SSJS: (thanks to David Leedy for tell me about this and show me the article).
If you have the following SSJS code:
var dummyObj = {}
dummyObj.prototype.NAME = "Johann"
XPages SSJS doesn't care that you uses var (var means the variable must be local) and it makes dummyObj.NAME visible in the whole server with the value Johann. So if another nsf in the same server uses a var with the same name it inherits the whole prototype:
var dummyObj = {}
println(dummyObj.NAME) /*prints "Johann" */
This is a huge bug (one that makes unreliable XPages SSJS IMO). Even if you don't use prototype at all, if someone else in his application do something like this:
String.prototype.split = function(){ return "I broke this method" }
It will broke all applications in the same server that uses the innocent split().
So, the question is: if someone "by mistake" writes the following SSJS (XPages Server Side Javascript) in a NSF:
String.prototype.split = function(){ return "I broke this method" }
How can I fix String.prototype.split() to his original value?
As Mark Roden said, restarting HTTP task doesn't fix it.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Edit 1: Why I think this is a huge bug:
I'm a Javascript fan but IMHO #MarkyRoden has discovered a huge bug in SSJS. Shims and polyfills aren't really the main problem. Eval is known to be a bad practice but the prototype object is a fundamental element of basic Javascript. It's the standard and preferred way to add methods to Javascript classes, it's also needed for inheritance and all kind of OOP stuff. So you will need some kind of namespace at server level in order to avoid collisions. All this is really bad but the huge problem is that just a line of code in one application can broke all applications in a server. Yes, you can trust in your developers but one of them can write a bad line by mistake and also a Domino server can have hundreds of applications from different software vendors. Set the responsability in code reviews is not a reliable enought procedure. Maybe it's time to have a real javascript engine in SSJS, like V8, Spidermonkey, Chakra or Rhino. As a workaround, I'm thinking in something like Tommy Valand's idea with Rhino in SSJS.
Edit 2: It's even worse. You can do things like:
prototype.importPackage = null
or
prototype.Array = null
As you can see in #SvenHasselbach's article: http://hasselba.ch/blog/?p=1371
Edit 3: IBM: you told me I could use SSJS. COME ONE! PLEASE FIX THIS, it's AWFUL. Please let's officially report this issue to IBM.
You can reset the SSJS interpreter with the following Java code:
FacesContextExImpl fc = (FacesContextExImpl) FacesContextExImpl.getCurrentInstance();
UIViewRootEx2 uiRoot = (UIViewRootEx2) fc.getViewRoot();
JSContext jsContext = uiRoot.getJSInterpreter().getJSContext();
jsContext.getRegistry().init(jsContext);
This reinitializes the registry and all prototype functions.
EDIT: Changed the declaration of fc to the correct type.
EDIT 2:
Here is the SSJS version:
var uiRoot = facesContext.getViewRoot();
var jsContext = uiRoot.getJSInterpreter().getJSContext();
var reg = jsContext.getRegistry();
reg.init( jsContext );
Does I understand you correctly, that you want to clean up the SSJS interpreter to avoid a collision with your own prototype extension?
Just to clarify the answer above: This reinitializes the SSJS interpreter once. And only once.
You have to do this over and over again, because directly after reinitializing, another application on the server can overwrite the prototype functionality again. That's why this is not a real solution, it is an answer to your initial question.
It will have interessting consequences if another application will do the same while your code tries to use your extension...
try to do a Restart Task Http instead
tell http restart will not do a full restart of the http task
I have a customer SecureSocketFactory set to be used by Axis when making an https connection using the following property:
AxisProperties.setProperty("axis.socketSecureFactory",
"com.metavante.csp.model.manager.mobilepayments.MonitiseSSLSocketFactory");
When this class is instantiated by Axis, the constructor with a Hashtable (attributes) is called. I see the timeout attribute is set in this table. Is there anyway to set more values in this?
I would like to be able to configure the Socket Factory on a per-instance scenario instead of globally by using static or system properties.
Edit: I found out these attributes are actually the HttpSender (BasicHandler) options. I still am unable to set these dynamically though.
I figured out a way around the problem. In my code where I wanted to set the property I use:
serviceLocator.getEngine().setOption(USE_CERT_PROPERTY, new Boolean(true));
where getEngine returns the AxisEngine in use. Then in the socket factory I can:
Boolean useSMS = (Boolean) MessageContext.getCurrentContext().getProperty(OtherClass.USE_CERT_PROPERTY);
I could set the object to whatever, maybe I'll go with the certificate name I needed. Hope this helps someone.
You can retrieve the SocketFactory instance and then change or add attributes, if you are interested in modify SocketFactory behavior. But if you do this, you also should inject the HashTable attribute (with the timeout). I think there is not a final and pretty solution.
AxisProperties.setProperty("org.apache.axis.components.net.SecureSocketFactory", MyAxisSocketFactory.class.getName());
MyAxisSocketFactory factory = (MyAxisSocketFactory) SocketFactoryFactory.getFactory("https", myHashTableParams);
factory.setMyStuff();
After this code, the instance of SocketFactory will be created and configured, and ready to use in web services, or whatever ^_^