Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[Production] API is connected to a proxy, but API URL in Details is not the proxy URL #2956

Closed
bajiat opened this issue Sep 19, 2017 · 3 comments · Fixed by #2988
Closed
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@bajiat
Copy link
Contributor

bajiat commented Sep 19, 2017

If an API owner connects an API to proxy, they typically do not want any direct calls to the API. In other words, they do not want to show the backend URL to API consumers at all. This happens for a number of reasons (security, monetization and so on).

I have found at least one API in production (apinf.io), where API is connected to a proxy, but the API base path is still disclosed to users in API profile Details tab.

Steps to reproduce

  1. Log in to apinf.io (e.g. as admin )
  2. Go to Catalog
  3. Select Pokemon API
  4. Check the proxy settings: whether the API is connected to a proxy
  5. Check the API URL in the details tab: is it identical to the Proxy base path or the API base path

Expectation

If API is connected to a proxy, the API URL in Details should be identical to Proxy base path

Actual result

API is connected to a proxy, but the API URL is the API base path.

Version

0.47.0

Screenshot

pokemon_api_url

@marla-singer
Copy link
Contributor

@bajiat Tested this. It happens because one step of migration is missed when we were integrating MQT proxy. DB schema for Proxy Backend has the additional field type and there displays Proxy URL if the type equals "API Umbrella". The APIs are on production site don't have this field.

Three tentative steps to fix:

  1. Delete and Publish a Proxy Backend configuration again (via UI) or
  2. Create a migration step or
  3. Make a simple hook in code

@bajiat
Copy link
Contributor Author

bajiat commented Sep 22, 2017

@marla-singer What is you recommendation and why?

@marla-singer
Copy link
Contributor

@bajiat I recommendation to create a migration step because it allows keeping our database scheme updated on all sites

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants