Official Discord: https://discord.gg/NWpN5mmg3x | Powerful web framework for Rust | https://github.com/actix/actix-web/wiki/FAQ
Sorry have another question, just wondering if i can improve the code ergonomics a little. Prior to upgrading i'd have code like this:
let (game, rounds) = block(move || {
let game = Game::find_by_id(&connection, game_id)?;
let rounds = Round::belonging_to(&game).load::<Round>(&connection)?;
Ok((game, rounds))
})
.await?;Now with the changes to block(), it wraps the result for me. Since i want errors to return from the db operations there, i want to keep my own result. But this makes for a bit more code:
let data: Result<(Game, Vec<Round>), Error> = block(move || {
let game = Game::find_by_id(&connection, game_id)?;
let rounds = Round::belonging_to(&game).load::<Round>(&connection)?;
Ok((game, rounds))
})
.await?;
let (game, rounds) = data?;
1 reply
HttpServer::new(move || {
let auth = HttpAuthentication::bearer(bearer_auth_validator);
App::new()
.app_data(state.clone())
.wrap(middleware::Logger::default())
.wrap(auth)
.service(put_job)
.service(next)
})auth only with the two services, and add another service without the bearer authentication. How would I go about that?
Fiddled a bit with it, looks like
HttpServer::new(move || {
let auth = HttpAuthentication::bearer(bearer_auth_validator);
App::new()
.app_data(state.clone())
.wrap(middleware::Logger::default())
.service(metrics)
.service(web::scope("").wrap(auth).service(next).service(put_job))
})works
1 reply
is the Drop impl for the response body stream wrapper
res.map_body(...) (line 321) which you can use to wrap the stream in your own struct with other bits you'll need when the stream is done
I was wondering what the best way of encrypting proxied data through websockets would be.
I'm essentially making a proxy, but I don't want to be able to see the data.
I was thinking about implementing a TLS-like handshake, but then the server still gets both certificates and the encryption is breakable.
I'm going to be sending passwords and usernames through the network and the only server-side processing I'm going to be doing is mapping WSS streams to a random id.
.guard(guard::fn_guard(|req| is_logged(req.get_session())))
1 reply
I need to setup a connection bb8 connection pool inside actor startup. The bb8 pool builder is async call whereas started fn in Actor is sync. How do I get this initialization done?
Here is my code:
#[derive(Debug, Default)]
pub struct RedisActor {
pub pool: Option<Pool<RedisConnectionManager>>,
}
impl Actor for RedisActor {
type Context = Context<Self>;
fn started(&mut self, ctx: &mut Self::Context) {
let manager = RedisConnectionManager::new("redis://localhost").unwrap();
self.pool = Option::from(bb8::Pool::builder()
.max_size(5)
.build(manager).await.unwrap());
}
}The line await is failing because I can't use await inside normal function. Can someone help how to do this kind of pool initialization inside the actor start
Having two problems with migration to v4.
fn render_404() -> HttpResponse {
let body = serde_json::to_string(&ErrorResponse {
code: 404,
message: "Endpoint not found".into(),
})
.unwrap();
HttpResponse::with_body(StatusCode::NOT_FOUND, BoxBody::new(body))
}
App::new()
// ....
.default_service(web::route().to(render_404))I get error:
the trait
Handler<_>is not implemented forfn() -> actix_web::HttpResponse {render_404}
Secondly, I get this error on my own middleware:
error[E0271]: type mismatch resolving `<KeycloakAuth<[closure@src/main.rs:162:33: 165:14]> as Transform<actix_web::scope::ScopeService, ServiceRequest>>::Response == ServiceResponse`
--> src/main.rs:206:35
|
206 | ... .wrap(either_middleware::OneOrAnother::new(keycloak_auth.clone()))
| ---- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ expected enum `EitherBody`, found struct `BoxBody`
| |
| required by a bound introduced by this call
|
= note: expected struct `ServiceResponse<EitherBody<_>>`
found struct `ServiceResponse<BoxBody>`
note: required because of the requirements on the impl of `Transform<actix_web::scope::ScopeService, ServiceRequest>` for `OneOrAnother<KeycloakAuth<[closure@src/main.rs:162:33: 165:14]>, KeycloakError>`
--> src/either_middleware.rs:22:22
|
22 | impl<S, Req, T1, T2> Transform<S, Req> for OneOrAnother<T1, T2>
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^The whole middleware is here: https://bpa.st/HXXQ
Wondering what has changed that made these two things now not work
1 reply
ah I figured that of the two middlewares T1 and T2, they respectively have Response = EitherBody and BoxBody. And then there's this bound
T1: Transform<S, Req, Response = S::Response, Error = S::Error>,
T2: Transform<S, Req, Response = S::Response, Error = S::Error, InitError = T1::InitError>,Which says that they need to equal S::Response.
I don't really know what S::Response is... I mean all we know is S: Service<Req> + 'static,. Actually I see from https://docs.rs/actix-web/latest/actix_web/struct.App.html#method.wrap that S = T::Service (where S is the generic argument in my middleware and T the generic argument in App). Still it's a difficult puzzle...
impl<S, Req, T1, T2, R> Transform<S, Req> for OneOrAnother<T1, T2>
where
S: Service<Req> + 'static,
T1: Transform<S, Req, Response = R, Error = S::Error>,
T2: Transform<S, Req, Response = R, Error = S::Error, InitError = T1::InitError>,
T1::Future: 'static,It's not an input = output kind of bound, it's an output = output kind of bound. But there's nothing stopping the middleware from outputting a different body type I think
type Response = EitherBody<T1::Response, T2::Response>;
My next problem is that Etiher from actix-utils impls Future like this:
impl<L, R> Future for Either<L, R>
where
L: Future,
R: Future<Output = L::Output>,
{
type Output = L::Output;I don't understand why it doesn't have type Output = either::Either<L::Output, R::Output>;.
Can someone here enlighten me whether a PR for this would be desired? Meanwhile, I'll try to find a workaround for my own use case
@robjtede:matrix.org Am I going in the right direction here? Let's just look at the signatures and bounds:
impl<S, Req, T1, T2, Response1, Response2> Transform<S, Req> for OneOrAnother<T1, T2>
where
S: Service<Req> + 'static,
T1: Transform<S, Req, Response = ServiceResponse<Response1>, Error = Error>,
T2: Transform<
S,
Req,
Response = ServiceResponse<Response2>,
Error = Error,
InitError = T1::InitError,
>,
T1::Future: 'static,
T1::InitError: 'static,
T1::Transform: 'static,
T2::Future: 'static,
T2::InitError: 'static,
T2::Transform: 'static,
{
type Response = ServiceResponse<EitherBody<Response1, Response2>>;
type Error = Error;
type Transform = OneOrAnotherMiddleware<T1::Transform, T2::Transform>;
type InitError = T1::InitError;
type Future = LocalBoxFuture<'static, Result<Self::Transform, Self::InitError>>;pub enum OneOrAnotherMiddleware<T1, T2> {
Left(T1),
Right(T2),
}
impl<T1, T2, Response1, Response2, Req> Service<Req> for OneOrAnotherMiddleware<T1, T2>
where
T1: Service<Req, Response = ServiceResponse<Response1>, Error = Error>,
T2: Service<Req, Response = ServiceResponse<Response2>, Error = Error>,
{
type Response = ServiceResponse<EitherBody<Response1, Response2>>;
type Error = Error;
type Future =
std::pin::Pin<Box<dyn std::future::Future<Output = Result<Self::Response, Self::Error>>>>;I just made it compile, but it doesn't feel completely right.
I just addedd a lot of bounds and generics (Response1, Response2) mainly because of the requirement that all Response types need to be ServiceResponse<_>. I didn't make the implementation right now but from the bounds and signatures I think we can deduce that the implementation would sort of.. ignore the ServiceResponse it gets from the inner middlewares, and wrap it anew..? But I'm really in doubt about that.
2 replies
Hello together :) I'm currently trying to implement an auth-middleware, which sets a user's data as the request's extension. To do so it extracts an auth-token from the requests cookie and queries against a r2d2 postgres-pool in order to determine, whether this token belongs to a user. Following the docs, I passed a clone of the pool to app_data. After setting app_data, I attached my middleware. However, it fails to extract the Pool, meaning I can not use it in its implementation of "call". I checked multiple times that the pool's type while setting app_data matches the type during its extraction.
So my question is:
Is app_data supposed to be available within the context of a middleware, or are there other caveats I'm not aware of?
Thanks in advance! :)
1 reply