alternative server_method api

Ouverte
#351 1 commentaire 2 réactions 0 personnes assignées Voir sur GitHub

Personne n'a encore pris cette issue.

Évaluation

Difficulté
5/5
Temps estimé
Plus d'une semaine
Accessibilité débutants
25/100
Type d'issue
Fonctionnalité
Clarté
À clarifier
Activité
À l'abandon
Stack technique
rails, ruby
Domaine
api, backend

Piste de recherche

Commencez par suivre le comportement existant de server_methods et la manière dont les déclarations de app/hyperstack/models et app/models sont chargées côté client et côté serveur. Définissez le périmètre de remote_access_to, des blocs de sécurité partagés, des définitions réservées au serveur et de no_cache, puis vérifiez que le comportement existant des méthodes serveur reste inchangé.

Rédigé par le modèle d'indexation à partir du texte de l'issue.

Description

enhancement

given you have an existing model, which needs some of the methods to be defined as server_methods, it would be nice to say something like:

remote_access_to(:foo, :bar) { acting_user.admin? }

where foo and bar are existing instance methods.

or

remote_access_to(:foo, bar: 12) ...

which will give a default value of 12 to bar.

This is nice not only because it allows for existing methods to be declared as server methods without modification, but it also allows for a common security block to be provided, instead of repeating it. It also is a nicer separation of concerns.

Basic implementation is straight forward: On the client methods :foo and :bar are defined like any other server method, and will call the method with the security name prefix. On the server, the secured method calls the block, and if successfully returns true, continues on and calls the method.

There are complexities:

  1. if the remote_access_to declaration is placed BEFORE the definition of foo and bar, you have to make sure that those definitions are server only. It might be possible by redefining define_method, to check for this case...

  2. If foo and bar are server side only, then it would be nice if they could be declared in a file that is in app/models. This can be done by putting the server and client defs in app/hyperstack/models, and then putting server only defs in app/models and adding a require Rails.root.join('app', 'models', 'sample.rb') unless RUBY_ENGINE == 'opal' at the start of the file, and maybe with some hacking we could make a method called require_server_definitions that would automatically figure out the file being loaded, and then load the same file from app/models.

And a nice feature:

server_methods by default assume that they are returning a value, and thus will cache the value on the client once its retrieved. You can force a re-retrieval of the value by adding a ! to the method name. But in many cases you just want the method to be run on the server every time its called, anyway. So how about a no_cache parameter added to the server method args.

Langage dominant
JavaScript
Étoiles
538
Forks
41
Métriques de merge des PR
Aucune PR mergée en 30 j

Guide de contribution

Ouvrir le guide de contribution

Par où commencer

  1. Lisez l'issue en entier, puis le guide de contribution du projet.
  2. Signalez en commentaire que vous la prenez — cela évite que deux personnes fassent le même travail.
  3. Forkez le dépôt et travaillez sur une branche.
  4. Ouvrez une pull request qui référence le numéro de l'issue.

Autres issues de hyperstack-org/hyperstack

Toutes les issues de hyperstack-org/hyperstack

Issues similaires

Plus d'issues JavaScript

Recevez les nouvelles issues par e-mail

Un résumé court des issues GitHub adaptées aux débutants.