I am triggering marketing goals using back-end code as follows:
if (!TrackerEnabled())
{
Tracker.StartTracking();
}
Item goal = Sitecore.Context.Database.GetItem(goalId);
var goalAsPageEvent = new PageEventItem(goal);
var pageEventsRow = Sitecore.Analytics.Tracker.CurrentPage.Register(goalAsPageEvent);
Sitecore.Analytics.Tracker.Submit();
And I can see the data in MongoDB interactions table as follows:
"PageEvents" : [
{
"Name" : "Apply Now - Auto Loans",
"Timestamp" : NumberLong(0),
"PageEventDefinitionId" : LUUID("dc9d7115-7bd5-7b40-9fa5-2722a2fb2e00"),
"IsGoal" : true,
"DateTime" : ISODate("2016-07-28T12:47:33.700Z"),
"Value" : 25
},
// ...
]
My question is: how can I see this data in Sitecore Experience Analytics or Content Editor?
Yes, you will be able to see this in Experience Analytics in aggregated state.
If you want to see this data in Sitecore with details you should use Experience Profile application.
Related
The background is I have a custom JSON based language.
Consider the following
In file 1, I have the following:
[
{
"name" : "abcde",
"source" : "source::abcde",
// other attributes
},
{
"name" : "qwerty",
"source" : "source::qwerty"
// other attributes
},
]
In file 2, I have the following:
abcde.json
{
"name" : "abcde"
// properties related to it
}
querty.json
{
"name" : "querty"
// properties related to it
}
Now, I want to build an extension/ grammar such that when a visitor uses Ctrl + click on source::abcde, it takes them to abcde.json.
I am wondering how to achieve through a VS code extension. I dont have a lot of expertise in this area.
I took a look into https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/ , could not find one directly. I have 10000+ such definitions, it is becoming very hard to maintain and update these.
Any help on how to achieve this? or some pointing blogs would be really helpful
I have a Springboot application + MongoDB and I need to audit every update made to a collection on specified fields (data analysis purpose).
If I have a collection like:
{
"_id" : ObjectId("12345678910"),
"label_1" : ObjectId("someIdForLabel1"),
"label_2" : ObjectId("someIdForLabel2"),
"label_3" : ObjectId("someIdForLabel"),
"name": "my data",
"description": "some curious stuff",
"updatedAt" : ISODate("2022-06-21T08:28:23.115Z")
}
I want to write an audit document whenever a label_* is updated. Something like
{
"_id" : ObjectId("111213141516"),
"modifiedDocument" : ObjectId("12345678910"),
"modifiedLabel" : "label_1",
"newValue" : ObjectId("someNewIdForLabel1"),
"updatedBy" : ObjectId("userId"),
"updatedAt" : ISODate("2022-06-21T08:31:20.315Z")
}
How can I achieve this with MongoListener? I already have two methods for AfterSave and AfterDelete , for other purposes, but they give me the whole new Document.
I would rather avoid to query again the DB or to use a findAndModify() in the first place.
I gave a look to ChangeStreams too, but I have too many doubts when it comes to more than 1 instance.
Thank you so much, any tip will be appreciated!
Take the following URI's as an example:
/tracks
/tracks/:id
/playlists
/playlists/:id
/playlists/:id/tracks
I have a question about the last URI (/playlists/:id/tracks). How do I add extra information/context to the track objects in relation to it's parent playlist?
Examples of context:
Added time of the track to the playlist
Play count of the track within the playlist
Likes per track within the playlist
All tracks have a created timestamp, play count and likes on a global scale. So my question is how would this information be added to the response of the endpoint.
I've come up with following for now:
{
"title" : "harder better faster stronger",
"artist" : "daft punk",
"likes" : 234252,
"created_at" : "2012-10-03 09:57:04"
"play_count" : 1203200035,
"relation_to_parent": {
"likes" : 5,
"created_at" : "2014-11-07 19:21:64",
"play_count" : 20
}
}
I've added a field called relation_to_parent which adds some context to the relation between the child and it's parent. I'm not sure though if this is a good way to do it. Hope to hear some other solutions.
By 1:n relations you can define a subresource. By n:m relations it is better to define a separate relationship resource. Note that these are just best practices, not standards.
Be aware that you can add links pointing to a different resource. According to the HATEOAS constraint you have to create hyperlinks if you want to expose an operation (for example getting another resource).
I don't think there is a 'one true way' to do this. Personally, I dislike adding the extra information like that, since you are giving a resource-plus, when you are looking for a resource. In any case, are 'likes' and 'created_at' and 'play_count' actually part of the relation to the parent, aren't they part of the track itself?
The two paths I usually see for this are:
/playlist/:id/tracks - returns a list of IDs (or URLs) for actual tracks, which you then fetch with /tracks/:track
/playlist/:id/tracks - returns the actual tracks, as if you did both steps in 1 above.
As for additional information, if it is not part of the tracks, you might do it as (any of these is valid):
info as part of the track, so /tracks/:track always returns the 'play_count' and 'likes', etc.
separate information, i.e. its own resource, if you want to keep the track clean. So you might get it at /tracks/:track/social_info or maybe /social_info/:track where it matches the track ID 1-to-1
If you have actual relation information, then it depends if it is 1:1 or 1:N or N:1 or N:N. 1:1 or 1:N or N:1 you would probably reports as part of the resource itself, while N:N would either be part of the resource (JSON objects can have depth) or as a separate resource.
Personally, I have done all of the above, and find cleaner is better, even if it is multiple retrievals. But now we are delving into opinion....
EDITED:
There are lots of ways to do N:N, here are just some:
/playlist/:id/tracks/:track/social_info - which could be embedded or a link to another object
/social_info/:playlist - more direct
/social_info/playlist/:id if you might have different kinds of social info
Personally (there is that word again; so much of this is personal preference and opinion), every time I have tried using deeper paths, thinking something only makes sense in a parent context, I have found myself ending up making its own resource for it, and linking back, so the 2nd or 3rd option ends up being what I do, with the first linking to it (either convenience to retrieve it or retrieve a list of it).
Mostly, that has not been because of constraints on the server side - e.g. when I write in nodejs, I use http://github.com/deitch/booster which handles multiple paths to the same resource really easily - but because client side frameworks often work better with a one true path.
If you want to fully embrace RESTful service design principles you definitely want to use hyperlinks in your representation format. JSON has some existing specifications if you prefer not to come up with your own: HAL and JSON API. A naive hypermedia format might look like this:
{
"playlist_id" : "666",
"created_at" : "2014-11-07 19:21:64",
"likes" : 5,
"tracks" : [
{"index" : 1,
"begin_at" : "00:02:00",
"end_at" : "00:05:23",
"_links" : {"track" : {
"href" : "/tracks/123",
"type" : "track"}}},
{"index" : 2,
"_links" : {"track" : {
"href" : "/tracks/432",
"type" : "track"}}},
{"index" : 3,
"_links" : {"track" : {
"href" : "/tracks/324",
"type" : "track"}}},
{"index" : 4,
"_links" : {"track" : {
"href" : "/tracks/567",
"type" : "track"}}}]
}
More elaborate features are included in both HAL and JSON API, like defining embedded resources and link templates. Using such semantics you might end up with something like the following:
{
"id" : "666",
"created_at" : "2014-11-07 19:21:64",
"likes" : 5,
"tracks" : [
{"id" : "123",
"index" : 1,
"begin_at" : "00:02:00",
"end_at" : "00:05:23"},
{"id" : "432",
"index" : 2},
{"id" : "324",
"index" : 3},
{"id" : "567",
"index" : 4}
],
"_links" : {
"_self" : {
"href" : "/playlists/666",
"type" : "playlist"},
"tracks" : {
"href" : "/tracks/{id}",
"type" : "track"}
},
"_embedded" : {
"track" : [
{"id" : "123",
"title" : "harder better faster stronger",
"artist" : "daft punk",
"created_at" : "2012-10-03 09:57:04",
"likes" : 234252,
"play_count" : 1203200035},
{"id" : "432",
"title" : "aerodynamic",
"artist" : "daft punk",
"created_at" : "2009-03-07 11:11:11",
"likes" : 33056,
"play_count" : 8796539}
]
}
}
Also, don't forget that using hyperlinks to express static relationships between entities is just the beginning of the journey. Using Hypermedia As The Engine Of Application State is the real Nirvana... but then you might be aiming too high.
I'm new on mongoDB and the point is, that we new realize an bug at our application witch results in multiple mongoDB entries instead of update the (edited) document.
now, the application is online, we realize the bug and trying to manage the trouble which comes with that.
Following situation: #mongoDB there are lots of documents containing this structure:
"_id" : ObjectId("4fd9ede5a6b9579f5b000003"),
"USER" : "my_username",
"matchID" : 18809,
"data1" : 2,
"data2" : 1,
"tippDate" : ISODate("2012-06-14T13:57:57Z"),
"data3" : 0
If the user changes the data at the application, the application inserts an new document instead of updating the existing.
Like that
{
"_id" : ObjectId("4fd9ede5a6b9579f5b000003"),
"USER" : "my_username",
"matchID" : 18809,
"data1" : 2,
"data2" : 1,
"tippDate" : ISODate("2012-06-14T13:57:57Z"),
"data3" : 0
}
{
"_id" : ObjectId("4fd9ede5a6b9579f5b000002"),
"USER" : "my_username",
"matchID" : 18809,
"data1" : 4,
"data2" : 2,
"tippDate" : ISODate("2012-06-14T12:45:33Z"),
"data3" : 0
}
Right now, the bug on application side is solved, but now we have to clean up the database.
The gaol is to keep only the newest record/document from each user.
One way is to handle this on application side: loading all the data from one user, order by date, removing all the data from one user and writing the newest entry back to mongoDB.
But: isn't it possible to process that an mongoDB like an delete with joints on MySQL?
Thank you for any kind of help or hints!
is'n it possible to process that an mongoDB like an delete with joints on MySQL?
No. MongoDB does not support joins at all.
However, MongoDB does have sorting. So you can run a script to fetch each user, sort them by date and then delete the old ones.
Also, please not that you can override the _id field. It does not have to be an ObjectId(). Based on your description, you have a unique user_name, so why not simply use that as the _id?
I have a basic structure like this:
> db.users.findOne()
{
"_id" : ObjectId("4f384903cd087c6f720066d7"),
"current_sign_in_at" : ISODate("2012-02-12T23:19:31Z"),
"current_sign_in_ip" : "127.0.0.1",
"email" : "something#gmail.com",
"encrypted_password" : "$2a$10$fu9B3M/.Gmi8qe7pXtVCPu94mBVC.gn5DzmQXH.g5snHT4AJSZYCu",
"last_sign_in_at" : ISODate("2012-02-12T23:19:31Z"),
"last_sign_in_ip" : "127.0.0.1",
"name" : "Trip Jameson",
"sign_in_count" : 100,
"usertimes" : [
...thousands and thousands of records like this one....
{
"enddate" : 348268392.115282,
"idle" : 0,
"startdate" : 348268382.116728,
"title" : "My Awesome Title"
},
]
}
So I want to find only usertimes for a single user where the title was "My Awesome Title", and then I want to see what the value for "idle" was in that record(s)
So far all I can figure out is that I can find the entire user record with a search like:
> db.users.find({'usertimes.title':"My Awesome Title"})
This just returns the entire User record though, which is useless for my purposes. Am I misunderstanding something?
Return only partial embedded documents is currently not supported by MongoDB
The matching User record will always be returned (at least with the current MongoDB version).
see this question for similar reference
Filtering embedded documents in MongoDB
This is the correspondent Jira on MongoDB space
http://jira.mongodb.org/browse/SERVER-142
Use:
db.users.find({'usertimes.title': "My Awesome Title"}, {'idle': 1});
May I suggest you take a more detailed look at http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/Querying, it'll explain things for you.