[SalesForce] Rest Routing with Multiple Wildcards / Supporting REST Routing for Nested Resources

Question

Running into a SalesForce REST mapping issue involving multiple wildcards in an url. Is this not supported? Is there anyway to supporting routing for nested resources?

My Setup

I have this REST structure

GET /teams/{teamid}/members (list team members)
POST /teams/{teamid}/members (create team member)
PUT /teams/{teamid}/members/{memberid} (update team member)
DELETE /teams/{teamid}/members/{memberid} (delete team member

And I setup the routing as followed:

REST_teams_id_members.cls @RestResource(urlMapping='/v1/teams/*/members')
REST_teams_id_members_id.cls @RestResource(urlMapping='/v1/teams/*/members/*')

Issue

This was working fine, but now I can only get one set of routes to work at any given time. Which ever one was compiled first gets precedence. So both GET /teams/123/members and DELETE/teams/123/members/345` get routed to the same class.

So If I compile REST_teams_id_member.cls (making the other class the first compiled), I get the following routing

GET /teams/{teamid}/members -> REST_teams_id_members_id.cls -> 405 Method Not Allowed
POST /teams/{teamid}/members -> REST_teams_id_members_id.cls -> 405 Method Not Allowed
PUT /teams/{teamid}/members/{memberid} -> REST_teams_id_members_id.cls -> Good
DELETE /teams/{teamid}/members/{memberid} -> REST_teams_id_members_id.cls -> Good

If I then compile REST_teams_id_members_id.cls (swapping the order), I get this routing

GET /teams/{teamid}/members -> REST_teams_id_members.cls -> Good
POST /teams/{teamid}/members -> REST_teams_id_members.cls -> Good
PUT /teams/{teamid}/members/{memberid} -> REST_teams_id_members.cls -> 405 Method Not Allowed
DELETE /teams/{teamid}/members/{memberid} -> REST_teams_id_members.cls -> 405 Method Not Allowed

Discussion

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills, it doesn't make any sense how /teams/123/members/345 could possible match @RestResource(UrlMapping='/teams/*/members), and vice versa, I'm at a total loss for how /teams/123/members could route to @RestResource(UrlMapping='teams/*/members/*. They seem wholly distinct!!

We've got an imminent rollout and I'm complete stuck. Praying that SFSE community can help me out.

Best Answer

While it's not clear why that doesn't already work, to get your code out the door, my suggestion is to build your own REST dispatching service. The following pseudo code implementation works as followed:

Register for all REST requests for a particular url (e.g. /teams/*)
Register different controllers (which implement the interface Dispatchable)
In case the url matches the url of your dispatchable class, the method execute is executed

Pseudo Code

@RestResource(urlMapping = '/teams/*')
global class RestDispatcher
{
    static Map<String, List<Dispatchable>> dispatchables;
    static
    {
        dispatchables = new Map <String, List<Dispatchable>>
        {
            'POST' => new List<Dispatchable>(),
            'GET' => new List<Dispatchable>()
        };

        // register your class here e.g. dispatchables.get('POST').add(new DispatchableClass());
    }


    global interface Dispatchable
    {
        String getURLMapping(); // e.g. /teams/{teamNumber}/members/{memberId}
        void execute(Map<String, String> parameters);
    }

    @HTTPGet
    global static void doGET()
    {
        execute('GET');
    }

    @HTTPPOST
    global static void doPOST()
    {
        execute('POST');
    }

    private static void execute(String httpMethod)
    {
        RestRequest request = RestContext.request;
        for (Dispatchable d : dispatchables.get(httpMethod))
        {
            if(match(d.getURLMapping, request.requestURI))
            {
                d.execute(getParamters(request.requestURI, d.getURLMapping()));
            }
        }
    }

    global static Map<String, String> getParamters(String requestURI, String dispatcherURI)
    {
        // To-Do: implement an extraction method here.
        return new Map<String, String>();
    }

    global static boolean match(String dispatchURI, String reuquestURI)
    {
        if(true) // To-Do: add a matching algorith here
        {
            return true;
        }
        return false;
    }

}

Code: https://gist.github.com/cdeckert/6991034790b0a4c9a34c

Related Solutions

[SalesForce] Case Assignment Rule workaround

If this is a before insert trigger, will this owner persist, or will the default case assignment owner be set as the owner anyway.

Assignment rules run after triggers do. See Triggers and Order of Execution for more details.

Is there a way to access the 'Assign using assignment rules' attribute from the trigger so I can assure it isn't assigned using the assignment rules.

You can't access the DML operations of the current transaction, as it is already underway. Therefore, the assignment rules will be triggered, and you cannot prevent this from occurring.

Is this the best solution? Am I jumping through hoops for no reason? Does someone have a better solution for this scenario? This is really my main question, I can likely run some tests to find answers for the previous, but I'm more looking to get input as to if this solution makes sense or am I missing something easier or more obvious.

Pass the ID values to a future method, and perform your ownership change asynchronously. This will allow you to reassign the user correctly after the assignment rule logic has executed.

[SalesForce] Static Inheritance and SUPER keyword

First of all your code doesn't compile now. That explains a lot.

Secondly, in my opinion messing with polymorphism in static classes (wholly static as you said) is not a good design at all. I don't see any good reason (although there might be some) driven by design needs to do try to access static method with super. But question is still interesting, so let's move on.

Third thing is, you use super keyword to reference private member. It shouldn't be possible at all. Private is private. If it compiled somehow, that was certainly a bug.

Answering to point 1: As I said, I can't see any reason to inherit from static class. Actually It's not even an inheritance, you can access public members of any other static class anyway like listed below. Moreover, it's not permitted now - when I tried to compile your code (and many of it's variations :) I get the Variable does not exist: this error from line -1 (valuable clue!). Not surprisingly, the code like this works fine, and it doesn't grant any access to other private members:

public virtual class Fact_BaseFactory 
{
    public static void populateFieldNameToTypeMap(String objectName) { ... }
}



public class Fact_Account extends Fact_BaseFactory
{
    static 
    {
        Fact_BaseFactory.populateFieldNameToTypeMap('Account');
    }
}

According to second question:

A) This idea seems to be the way to go, I would just create some public method In the helper class and reuse the code within your factories. Not sure what you mean with violating DRY here.

B) Composition instead of inheritance is good design in general based on my experience and it's also recommended by Head First "Design Patterns" book. I would stick to the A anyway, but it's a good question to ask on codereview.stackexchange.com