# Actix-web-utils by franklin blanco Adds some useful structs, enums, macros, etc... to your typical web app, only compatible with actix-web backends for the moment. ## Why use this crate? Honestly, I find myself repeating the same structs, behaviours and logic in my backend applications for the web apps I develop. This crate just makes it all uniform and readable. ## How? Mainly by standarizing everything I can, repeating logic & code everywhere possible to maintain a uniform & straightforward development. Most web app backends have a Controller (Where routes are defined), Service (Where bsuiness logic lives (can also be inside the controller)), Repository/dao (Database access logic & methods), Clients/Communicators (Api consumption). Let's start with the controller. ### Controller You usually have a defined route with a desired return type and an error type. ```rust use actix_web::{http::header::ContentType, HttpResponse}; async fn index() -> HttpResponse { HttpResponse::Ok() .content_type(ContentType::plaintext()) // .insert_header(("X-Hdr", "sample")) <-- This line is irrelevant for this example .body("data") } ``` *Taken Straight from actix.rs* The way actix sells this seems a bit dry to me. How about this: ```rust use actix_web::{http::header::ContentType, HttpResponse}; use actix_web_utils::extensions::{TypedHttpResponse}; async fn index() -> TypedHttpResponse { TypedHttpResponse::return_standard_response(200, "data".to_string()) } ``` Much better for readability, and this wraps everything you give it inside a Json response, as is usually the standard. You can see the status code outright, and the response has to be a String if successful (this is important for later). Sure, you loose a lot of the modularity that actix web gives you. But that's why it's not a replacement for HttpResponse, but another type. You can always go back and use HttpResponse, my library isn't made to replace it, but to reduce the repetition it brings. #### Intended Limitations: - Can only use things that implement serde::Serialize because it attempts to wrap everything inside a json. This is planned. - Modularity is lost, no response headers, most of the features of HttpResponse get lost. This is also planned. - No custom errors. using this means you will be using the Error types & MessageResource defined in this package. Sorry about that, coding a modular solution for everybody would be hard. Feel free to contribute, really. I'll reply asap. In case you don't want to contribute also feel free to fork. ### Service This is where your business logic lives. This is really the most variable of all, as everyone has their own way of doing things. But I have seen many cases of code where it's just this: ```rust fn service_layer_function() -> HttpResponse { // ... Some Business logic let value_returned_from_match = match function_that_returns_a_result() { Ok(value) => value, Err(error) => return HttpResponse::BadRequest().json(web::Json(error.to_string())) }; // ... More Business logic } ``` When you could be doing this: ```rust fn service_layer_function() -> TypedHttpResponse { //T can be whatever you want // ... Some Business logic let value_returned_from_match = unwrap_or_return_handled_error!( function_that_returns_a_result(), T ); // ... More Business logic } ``` Much better and more readable for me. ### Repository (Database Access Object) **UNFINISHED!** #### MessageResource A key-message error type to return back a neat, well formatted error to a frontend. The key is optional, as I won't force you to use internationalization. ```json { "key": "ERROR_KEY", "message": "This is the part where you put the error message." } ``` This is supposed to be sent back to the client, so the client can display the error to the user, and/or get the translation (with the key). It is optional. #### TypedHttpResponse A wrapper for HttpResponse. Contains a type specification inside so that you can visualize and expect a certain type. Said type can only be a Serializable (Json). It can also return a MessageResource or nothing at all.