Support POST for /node/full/

[AbbyGi]

Closes #579.

[AbbyGi]

This isn't working yet. Running the test_search.py tests locally results in the following error:
tiled.client.utils.ClientError: 405: Method Not Allowed http://local-tiled-app/api/v1/search/

[padraic-shafer]

Here is a hint...

The failing test is receiving a response that indicates only the GET method is allowed for this route.

response.__dict__ = {'status_code': 405, 'headers': Headers({'allow': 'GET', 'content-length': '31', 'content-type': 'application/json', ..., '_request': <Request('POST', 'http://local-tiled-app/api/v1/search/')>, ...

---

It seems that either this section (below) should revert to a GET request...or the /search/ route (and presumably others) need to have a corresponding POST route.

https://github.com/AbbyGi/tiled/blob/fee5ee77a788eaa346abeda6a86fd6c43d73a3ec/tiled/client/container.py#L251-L258

I would tend to suggest reverting to the GET version in the client; then instead write a test that verifies the new POST route in the server/router for /node/full/{path}.

Subsequently we might still need to add POST routes corresponding to all the GET data routes; similar to /awkward/buffers/{path} and illustrated by /array/*/{path} in #579.

EDIT: Corrected "array" to "xarray".

[padraic-shafer]

With fresh eyes on this, I think it would make more sense to start from the bottom up. I believe the general /node/full/{path} POST will fail if the POST /full/{path} is not already implemented for the other structure families and media types.

E.g., Add a test to test_xarray.py that verifies a new (yet to be added) POST call. Then create the POST route that satisfies the test (without breaking other tests). Repeat this for test_array.py, test_dataframe.py, test_dataframe.py, test_hdf5.py, test_sparse.py, test_structured_array.py, test_tiff.py, and test_container_files.py. By that point, a POST route for /node/full/{path}has probably been created. If not, a container-specific test might be warranted.

I welcome input from @danielballan and others on the approach here.

[danielballan]

I wonder if we should merge this first, which deprecates /node/full and may make things more clear. #612

[padraic-shafer]

I wonder if we should merge this first, which deprecates /node/full and may make things more clear. #612

Yes, this would indeed be helpful. Thanks for putting that forward!

[padraic-shafer]

@AbbyGi With the recent helpful updates from #612, I think we should abandon this PR and start anew. I'll move some of this discussion above to issue #579.

[danielballan]

Superseded by #657