HATEOAS and forms driven by the API - json-ld

Question

I'm trying to apply HATEOAS to the existing application and I'm having trouble with modeling a form inputs that would be driven by the API response.
The app is allowing to search & book connections between two places. First endpoint allows for searching the connections GET /connections?from={lat,lon}&to={lat,lon}&departure={dateTime} and returns following payload (response body).
[
{
"id": "aaa",
"carrier": "Fast Bus",
"price": 3.20,
"departure": "2019-04-05T12:30"
},
{
"id": "bbb",
"carrier": "Airport Bus",
"price": 4.60,
"departure": "2019-04-05T13:30"
},
{
"id": "ccc",
"carrier": "Slow bus",
"price": 1.60,
"departure": "2019-04-05T11:30"
}
]
In order to make an order for one of connections, the client needs to make a POST /orders request with one of following payloads (request body):
email required
{
"connectionId": "aaa",
"email": "passenger#example.org"
}
email & flight number required (carrier handles only aiprort connections)
{
"connectionId": "bbb",
"email": "passenger#example.org",
"flightNumber": "EA1234"
}
phone number required
{
"connectionId": "ccc",
"phoneNumber": "[phone]"
}
The payload is different, because different connections may be handled by different carriers and each of them may require some different set of information to provide. I would like to inform the API client, what fields are required when creating an order. The question I have is how do I do this with HATEOAS?
I checked different specs and this is what I could tell from reading the specs:
HAL & HAL-FORMS There are "_templates" but, there is no URI in the template itself. It’s presumed to operate on the self link, which in my case would be /connections... not /orders.
JSON-LD I couldn't find anything about forms or templates support.
JSON-API I couldn't find anything about forms or templates support.
Collection+JSON There is at most one "template" per document, therefore it's presumed that all elements of the collection have the same fields which is not the case in my app.
Siren Looks like the "actions" would fit my use case, but the project seems dead and there are no supporting libraries for many major languages.
CPHL The project seems dead, very little documentation and no libraries.
Ion There is nice support for forms, but I couldn't find any supporting libraries. Looks like it's just a spec for now.
Is such a common problem as having forms driven by the API still unsolved with spec and tooling?

Answer 1

In your example, it appears that Connections are resources. It's not completely clear if Orders are truly resources. I'm guessing probably yes, but to have an Order you need a Client and Connection. So, to create an Order you will need to expose a collection, likely from the Client or Connection, possibly both.
I think the disconnect is from thinking along the lines of "now that we've got a list of available connections, the client can select one and create an Order." That's perfectly valid, but it's remote procedure call (RPC) thinking, not REST. Neither is objectively better than the other, except in the context of a particular set of project requirements, and generally they shouldn't be mixed together.
With an RPC mindset, a create order method is defined (e.g. using OpenAPI) and any clients are expected to use some out-of-band information to determine the correct form required (i.e. by reading the OpenAPI spec).
With a REST/HATEOAS mindset, the correct approach would be to expose a Orders collection from Connection. Each Connection in the collection has a self link and a Orders collection (link or object, as defined by app requirements). Each item of Order has a self link, and that is where the affordances are specified. An Order is a known type (even with REST/HATEOAS the client and service have to at least agree on a shared vocabulary) that the client presumably knows how to define. That vocabulary can be defined using any mechanism that works -- json-ld, XSD, etc.
HATEOAS requires that the result contains everything the client needs to update the state. There can be no out-of-band information (other than the shared vocabulary). So, to solve your issue, you either need to expose a collection of Orders from Connection or you need to allow an Order to be created by posting to Connection. If the latter seems like a bit of a hack, it probably is.
For example, in HAL-Forms, I would do something like:
{
"connections": [{
"id": "aaa",
"carrier": "Fast Bus",
"price": 3.20,
"departure": "2019-04-05T12:30"
"_links": {
"self": { ... }, // link to this connection
"orders": {} // link to collection of orders for this connection
}
},
, ...],
"_links": {
"self": { ... } // link to the collection
},
"_templates": { ... } // post/put/patch/delete connection
}
Clients would follow the links to orders and from there would get the _templates collection that contains the instructions for managing the Order resources. The Order POST would likely require a connection identifier and client information. The HAL-Forms Spec defines a regex property that can be used to specify the type of data to supply for any particular form element. Since you have reached the order by navigating through a specific connection, you would be able to specify in your _templates for that order exactly which fields are required. e.g. /orders?connectionType=aaa would return a different set of required properties than /orders?connectionType=bbb but both use the same self link of /orders?connectionType={type} and you'd validate it on POST/PUT/PATCH.
I should note that the Spring-HATEOAS goes beyond the HAL-Forms spec and allows for multiple _links and _templates. See this GitHub issue.
It may look like HATEOAS/REST requires quite a bit more work than a simple OpenAPI/RPC API and it does. But what you are giving up in simplicity, you are gaining in flexibility and resilience, assuming well-designed clients. Which approach is correct depends on a lot of factors, most of them not technical (team skills, expected consumers, how much control you have over clients, maintenance, etc.).