Skip to main content

API Design in ASP.NET Core Part IV

This week I had the honor to give a training to some of the newly started young professionals in our organisation. The topic of the training was API design in ASP.NET Core. During this training we discussed multiple topics and a lot of interesting questions were raised. I'll try to tackle some of them with a blog post.

The question I try to tackle today is...

What is idempotent in REST?

An important aspect when building REST API’s is the concept of ‘idempotency’. ‘Idem…what?’ I here you thinking.

Let’s ask MDN for an explanation:

An HTTP method is idempotent if an identical request can be made once or several times in a row with the same effect while leaving the server in the same state. In other words, an idempotent method should not have any side effects — unless those side effects are also idempotent. Implemented correctly, the GET, HEAD, PUT, and DELETE methods are idempotent, but not the POST method. All safe methods are also idempotent.

That explanation brings us to a second question, what are safe methods in REST?

MDN again:

An HTTP method is safe if it doesn't alter the state of the server. In other words, a method is safe if it leads to a read-only operation. Several common HTTP methods are safe: GET, HEAD, or OPTIONS. All safe methods are also idempotent, but not all idempotent methods are safe. For example, PUT and DELETE are both idempotent but unsafe.

Here is an overview:

HTTP method Safe? Idempotent?
GET yes yes
OPTIONS yes yes
HEAD yes yes
POST no no
DELETE no yes
PUT no yes
PATCH no no

Why is this important?

The answer is predictability. Developers that consume our API might expect that it follows the rules above. They might make certain technical decisions in their code assuming that the endpoints we provided them would work as per the standards. So knowing this will help us design our API endpoints that are compliant with industry standards, making lives easier for the people who use those APIs.

Another reason is reliability. You know when it is safe to implement some retry logic in your client without causing side effects. A library that can help you implement this is Polly.

 

Popular posts from this blog

Podman– Command execution failed with exit code 125

After updating WSL on one of the developer machines, Podman failed to work. When we took a look through Podman Desktop, we noticed that Podman had stopped running and returned the following error message: Error: Command execution failed with exit code 125 Here are the steps we tried to fix the issue: We started by running podman info to get some extra details on what could be wrong: >podman info OS: windows/amd64 provider: wsl version: 5.3.1 Cannot connect to Podman. Please verify your connection to the Linux system using `podman system connection list`, or try `podman machine init` and `podman machine start` to manage a new Linux VM Error: unable to connect to Podman socket: failed to connect: dial tcp 127.0.0.1:2655: connectex: No connection could be made because the target machine actively refused it. That makes sense as the podman VM was not running. Let’s check the VM: >podman machine list NAME         ...

Cache stampede: when our cache turned against us

While investigating some performance issues, we ran into an ASP.NET Core API that cached a fairly expensive aggregation query for 60 seconds. Under normal load, that was fine: one request rebuilds the cache, everyone else reads from it. Under peak load, dozens of requests would arrive in that same expiry window, all see a cache miss, and all fire the same expensive query in parallel. The database didn't like that. That was the moment when our caching layer stopped helping and started hurting. A burst of requests comes in at the same time, all miss the cache, and all go hammer the database or the downstream API at once. That's a cache stampede . The cache was supposed to protect our backend, and for a few hundred milliseconds it did the opposite. Why this happens IMemoryCache.GetOrCreate (and its async sibling) looks like it protects you, but it doesn't add any locking on its own. Look at the naive version: public async Task<Report> GetReportAsync(string key) ...

A complex system designed from scratch never works

A few years ago, I worked as an architect on a big mainframe rewrite. I still count it as one of my failures. Not because the technology was wrong, but because I couldn't convince the management team to simplify the approach. Years later, the organization is still struggling to get the new system up and running. I left the project at the time, because I couldn't put my name behind an approach that would take very long and cost a lot of money without a working system to show for it along the way. Gall’s Law That memory keeps coming back to me, because it's a textbook case of Gall's Law playing out in real life. Gall's Law , from John Gall's Systemantics , states it plainly: A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. A complex system designed from scratch never works, and it cannot be patched to make it work. You have to start over with a simple system that works. What does that mean in practice,...