dhis2-devs-core team mailing list archive

[Bob Jolliffe <bobjolliffe@xxxxxxxxx>]

OK.  Sorry I am thinking more of posting datavalues than metadata.  In
which the outcome is not so binary.

On 17 October 2014 14:26, Morten Olav Hansen <mortenoh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi Bob
>
> Actually... I think for 95% of the cases.. we only need a yes / no
> response, think about usual use-cases.. create a new data element: OK / NOT
> OK, enroll a person into a program: OK / NOT OK, delete a chart: OK / NOT OK
>
> Most people will not do bulk imports (where this will be visible)
>
>
> --
> Morten
>
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Bob Jolliffe <bobjolliffe@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>> Looking at what I wrote again.  Perhaps I am mixing the meaning of status
>> with code.
>>
>> It seems fine to have a status of OK or ERROR followed by a code which
>> can indicate the nuances of how ok it actually was.
>>
>> On 17 October 2014 14:22, Bob Jolliffe <bobjolliffe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Morten
>>>
>>> Looking good ...
>>>
>>> I think the ability to easily distinguish between good (all ok) imports
>>> and not-so-good (some conflicts) responses is really important, as I
>>> imagine these will be the most common cases which clients will have to
>>> discriminate between.  I am not sure if burying the detail too far inside
>>> the response body is necessarily the best - but of course it can work.  I
>>> would lean in favour of some sort of PARTIAL_OK status.
>>>
>>> It might be helpful to consider (and start to enumerate) the kind of
>>> error messages we actually expect to get and classify them.
>>>
>>> There are the 5xx and 4xx type of http errors which I presume we also
>>> want to return such a message, using the mimetype requested by the client.
>>>
>>> Then there are the 2xx series of messages ie. messages which are deemed
>>> OK from an http perspective but can result in a variety of responses from
>>> the application perspective (everything fine, some thing fine, incorrect
>>> dataset for orgunit, "conflicts" etc).  I guess these are what you are
>>> thinking of creating 200xx codes for?
>>>
>>> On 17 October 2014 14:11, Morten Olav Hansen <mortenoh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes, mark... or we can (which might be a better choice) use status = OK
>>>> for this, and then have a ImportWebMessageResponse body.. with additional
>>>> information.. <response type="type" /> have types.. so we can define them
>>>> in the docs, and then the end user client can handle them accordingly..
>>>>
>>>> Because, the import itself was ok.. but there was a few conflicts.. it
>>>> would be a bit cleaner to just have OK / ERROR.
>>>>
>>>> (Halvdan, please use reply-all)
>>>>
>>>> I think this should be left in the response part of the message.. and
>>>> there we can have anything..
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Morten
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Halvdan Grelland <halvdanhg@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It might be a verbose and slightly complex solution, but we could
>>>>> allow status: multistatus with a mandatory per-object status description
>>>>> (OK or error). Actual warnings are better put in the message fields, no?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Den fredag 17. oktober 2014 skrev Morten Olav Hansen <
>>>>> mortenoh@xxxxxxxxx> følgende:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not a fan of success, but if everyone agrees.. I will change ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another issue is.. do we need WARNING? are you all probably know.. if
>>>>>> you import a big metadata chunk.. and 50 items are ok.. and 10 not ok (some
>>>>>> kind of conflict), we can't return ERROR.. since we did save a lot.. but
>>>>>> returning OK / SUCCESS also feels weird.. OK_WITH_WARNING? OK?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have the same issue in data value import..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Morten
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 8:00 PM, Halvdan Grelland <
>>>>>> halvdanhg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This looks nice!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the status enum is changed to "success" / "error" this format
>>>>>>> would actually be backwards compatible with the (weak) convention in a lot
>>>>>>> of our older frontend code. Might make integrating older code with the web
>>>>>>> api slightly less painful?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Den fredag 17. oktober 2014 skrev Morten Olav Hansen <
>>>>>>> mortenoh@xxxxxxxxx> følgende:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hei everyone
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A few days again, I committed a new class called WebMessage. The
>>>>>>>> point of this class is to have a common building block for all kind of
>>>>>>>> responses from the web-api.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The main properties are:
>>>>>>>> WebMessage:
>>>>>>>>   status: OK / ERROR
>>>>>>>>   code: internal code
>>>>>>>>   httpStatusCode: http status code
>>>>>>>>   message: non-technical end-user message (i18n etc)
>>>>>>>>   devMessage: technical / debug message
>>>>>>>>   response: WebMessageResponse, can be anything
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So a typical response can be:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> JSON:
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>   status: "OK",
>>>>>>>>   code: 20001,
>>>>>>>>   httpStatusCode: 200 // notice that code also starts with 200
>>>>>>>>   message: "DataElement successfully saved.",
>>>>>>>>   devMessage: "DataElement was successfully saved to database, id
>>>>>>>> ID123"
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> XML:
>>>>>>>> <webMessage xmlns="http://dhis2.org/schema/dxf/2.0"; status="OK"
>>>>>>>> code="20001" httpStatusCode="200">
>>>>>>>>   <message> DataElement successfully saved .</message>
>>>>>>>>   <devMessage> DataElement was successfully saved to database, id
>>>>>>>> ID123 </devMessage>
>>>>>>>> </webMessage>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And of course, response can be added... its just a simple
>>>>>>>> interface, with nothing on it. so you can create your own implementations
>>>>>>>> (I only provide one, ImportCountWebMessageResponse)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This class is not currently in use, but I'm planning to implement
>>>>>>>> this full-scale in 2.18, so I'm very open to any kind of comments (unless
>>>>>>>> you are living under a rock, you will be starting to see this messages all
>>>>>>>> the time), so please.. this is the time to change this format (it will be
>>>>>>>> fixed from 2.18).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Comments?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> httpStatusCode can definitely be left out, but it just simplifies
>>>>>>>> things a lot to leave it in..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Morten
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-devs-core
>>>> Post to     : dhis2-devs-core@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-devs-core
>>>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>