Rework internal API #12
Conversation
achouippe
commented
Jul 22, 2024
•
achouippe
commented
- Add an OpenAPI descriptor for the internal API,
- Support one or multiple topics in one HTTP call,
- Support one or multiple published message in one HTTP cal,
- Validation of the JSON input,
- Split existing unit tests + comprehensive unit tests on the validation logic,
- Possibility to pass message timestamps in the publish request.
|
|
||
| Logger.debug("Message published on topic: #{topic}") | ||
| Stats.inc_msg_received() | ||
| Stats.inc_msg_received() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not sure what we really want to monitor with the new API.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we incr with nb_publish?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we want to count the number of call on the internal interface per issuer ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In that case, it should be outside of the loop :)
| |> put_resp_header("content-type", "text/html") | ||
| |> send_resp(200, "Published #{message} to #{topic}\n") | ||
| |> put_resp_header("content-type", "application/json") | ||
| |> send_resp(200, "{\"nb_published\": #{nb_publish}}") |
| } | ||
| end | ||
|
|
||
| def validate(message) do |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You can probably write this with a list of guard. May be it's cleaner.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I tried first, but the combinatory effect make it much difficult to read.
| end | ||
| end | ||
|
|
||
| def validate_topics(request) do |
| end | ||
| end | ||
|
|
||
| def validate_messages(request) do |
| Neurow.InternalApi.Message.from_json(payload["message"]) | ||
|
|
||
| _ -> | ||
| nil |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nil -> nil, but _ -> error?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The validation is performed later, so I prefer not to return an error at this step.
|
|
||
| Logger.debug("Message published on topic: #{topic}") | ||
| Stats.inc_msg_received() | ||
| Stats.inc_msg_received() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In that case, it should be outside of the loop :)
