I queried an Invoice that contains a billable expense charge. The response includes (and I'm showing just the relevant portions of it):
....
"Line": [
{
"LineNum": 1,
"DescriptionLineDetail": {
"ServiceDate": "2015-11-15"
},
"Id": "3",
"DetailType": "DescriptionOnly",
"Description": "Test Billable Transaction 1"
},
{
"LineNum": 2,
"DescriptionLineDetail": {
"ServiceDate": "2015-11-15"
},
"Id": "4",
"DetailType": "DescriptionOnly",
"Description": "Test Billable Expense Transaction 3"
},
{
"DetailType": "SubTotalLineDetail",
"Amount": 8.01,
"SubTotalLineDetail": {}
}
],
"LinkedTxn": [
{
"TxnId": "1938",
"TxnType": "ReimburseCharge"
},
{
"TxnId": "1932",
"TxnType": "ReimburseCharge"
}
],
...
I tried querying the API for ReimburseCharge and got only errors back. Is this business object on the roadmap?
On a related note, I observe that a billable line (at least in Purchase objects) can have its BillableStatus attribute set to "HasBeenBilled" with an Update call. It cannot be set back to "Billable" without first setting it to "NotBillable", but this does seem to work more than once so that it's not a one-way effect. If the line has actually been billed though, I get a validation fault when I try to change the BillableStatus from "HasBeenBilled" to "NotBillable", which I suppose makes sense.
Here's what's decidedly problematic though: I cannot use the API to either link a billable expense to an invoice or figure out where an already-linked expense is invoiced. Also, I cannot see the amount of the individual lines contained in these "DescriptionOnly" lines, so all I get is the total. Does Intuit have plans to change this and, if so, when?
This decision for supporting Reimb Charge is still pending.
Regarding DescriptionOnly- This was meant to support only total and sub totals.
So, if you have to use lines then you should use SalesItemLineDetail
Related
How to make child-card Discussion notes rollup to parent card in Azure DevOps?
The way we use ADO is like this:
User Story -> Task 1
-> Task 2
-> Task 3
Both User Story cards and Task cards contain Discussion fields, and we have hit a quandary as to "which cards' discussion fields should we use to enter ongoing notes and discussions"? The Parent (user story)? Or the child (task)? It makes more sense for devs to enter discussion notes in the tasks, but our Support people and managers like to just look at the parent User Story card where they hope to see all discussion notes.
For now I am double-entering discussion notes in both tasks and their parent user story cards, which is not only an inefficient pain, but also violates DRY.
Then it occurred to me that the ideal solution would be for user story cards to be able to display (within the Discussion section) all discussion notes from all child cards. So if I enter a note in a Task (child) card and save it, automatically it would appear as a discussion note within its parent user story card. Ideally I could still enter user-story-specific discussion notes on occasion, but all child cards' notes would be automatically pulled in and displayed (maybe readonly? editable only in the child?) in the parent card, in all cases.
Is there an easy way to make this happen?
If the answer to #1 above is no, then is there a difficult way to make it happen? Maybe via customizations or custom API calls? What would be the best way to achieve my desired result?
This is not possible out of the box in Azure DevOps (at least not to my knowledge).
However I can think of a few ways to get this done, but it requires some custom scripting, and have some drawbacks that may of may not affect your use case.
Option 1. Create a custom extension that aggregates the comments on the parent
This option gives you complete freedom of how to visually design the feature. It is also completely DRY
You can develop your own custom extension for Azure DevOps and create a dynamic section on the User Story card that pulls in the comments from all tasks.
Option 2. Setup a Web Hook for the event "Workitem commented on"
This option does is not completely DRY, but it will at least automate the copying of comments across work items.
By configuring a web hook in Azure Devops to post a json object containing information about the new comment to a REST endpoint of your choice. The payload posted looks like below.
{
"subscriptionId": "5be97cbc-ee4b-4c21-91ea-866a61d624c4",
"notificationId": 4,
"id": "fb2617ed-60df-4518-81fa-749faa6c5cd6",
"eventType": "workitem.commented",
"publisherId": "tfs",
"message": {
"markdown": "[Bug #5](http://fabrikam-fiber-inc.visualstudio.com/web/wi.aspx?pcguid=74e918bf-3376-436d-bd20-8e8c1287f465&id=5) (Some great new idea!) commented on by Jamal Hartnett."
},
"detailedMessage": {
"markdown": "[Bug #5](http://fabrikam-fiber-inc.visualstudio.com/web/wi.aspx?pcguid=74e918bf-3376-436d-bd20-8e8c1287f465&id=5) (Some great new idea!) commented on by Jamal Hartnett.\r\nThis is a great new idea"
},
"resource": {
"id": 5,
"rev": 4,
"fields": {
"System.AreaPath": "FabrikamCloud",
"System.TeamProject": "FabrikamCloud",
"System.IterationPath": "FabrikamCloud\\Release 1\\Sprint 1",
"System.WorkItemType": "Bug",
"System.State": "New",
"System.Reason": "New defect reported",
"System.CreatedDate": "2014-07-15T17:42:44.663Z",
"System.CreatedBy": {
"displayName": "Jamal Hartnett",
"url": "https://vssps.dev.azure.com/fabrikam/_apis/Identities/e5a5f7f8-6507-4c34-b397-6c4818e002f4",
"_links": {
"avatar": {
"href": "https://dev.azure.com/mseng/_apis/GraphProfile/MemberAvatars/aad.YTkzODFkODYtNTYxYS03ZDdiLWJjM2QtZDUzMjllMjM5OTAz"
}
},
"id": "e5a5f7f8-6507-4c34-b397-6c4818e002f4",
"uniqueName": "Jamal Hartnett",
"imageUrl": "https://dev.azure.com/fabrikam/_api/_common/identityImage?id=e5a5f7f8-6507-4c34-b397-6c4818e002f4",
"descriptor": "ukn.VXkweExUVXRNakV0TWpFME5qYzNNekE0TlMwNU1ETXpOak15T0RVdE56RTVNelEwTnpBM0xURXpPRGswTlRN"
},
"System.ChangedDate": "2014-07-15T17:42:44.663Z",
"System.ChangedBy": {
"displayName": "Jamal Hartnett",
"url": "https://vssps.dev.azure.com/fabrikam/_apis/Identities/e5a5f7f8-6507-4c34-b397-6c4818e002f4",
"_links": {
"avatar": {
"href": "https://dev.azure.com/mseng/_apis/GraphProfile/MemberAvatars/aad.YTkzODFkODYtNTYxYS03ZDdiLWJjM2QtZDUzMjllMjM5OTAz"
}
},
"id": "e5a5f7f8-6507-4c34-b397-6c4818e002f4",
"uniqueName": "Jamal Hartnett",
"imageUrl": "https://dev.azure.com/fabrikam/_api/_common/identityImage?id=e5a5f7f8-6507-4c34-b397-6c4818e002f4",
"descriptor": "ukn.VXkweExUVXRNakV0TWpFME5qYzNNekE0TlMwNU1ETXpOak15T0RVdE56RTVNelEwTnpBM0xURXpPRGswTlRN"
},
"System.Title": "Some great new idea!",
"System.Parent": 26
"Microsoft.VSTS.Common.Severity": "3 - Medium",
"WEF_EB329F44FE5F4A94ACB1DA153FDF38BA_Kanban.Column": "New",
"System.History": "This is a great new idea"
},
"_links": {
"self": {
"href": "http://fabrikam-fiber-inc.visualstudio.com/DefaultCollection/_apis/wit/workItems/5"
},
"workItemUpdates": {
"href": "http://fabrikam-fiber-inc.visualstudio.com/DefaultCollection/_apis/wit/workItems/5/updates"
},
"workItemRevisions": {
"href": "http://fabrikam-fiber-inc.visualstudio.com/DefaultCollection/_apis/wit/workItems/5/revisions"
},
"workItemType": {
"href": "http://fabrikam-fiber-inc.visualstudio.com/DefaultCollection/_apis/wit/ea830882-2a3c-4095-a53f-972f9a376f6e/workItemTypes/Bug"
},
"fields": {
"href": "http://fabrikam-fiber-inc.visualstudio.com/DefaultCollection/_apis/wit/fields"
}
},
"url": "http://fabrikam-fiber-inc.visualstudio.com/DefaultCollection/_apis/wit/workItems/5"
},
"resourceVersion": "1.0",
"resourceContainers": {
"collection": {
"id": "c12d0eb8-e382-443b-9f9c-c52cba5014c2"
},
"account": {
"id": "f844ec47-a9db-4511-8281-8b63f4eaf94e"
},
"project": {
"id": "be9b3917-87e6-42a4-a549-2bc06a7a878f"
}
},
"createdDate": "2022-07-03T12:30:03.0691717Z"
}
In particular you have the comment message under message, the author of the message under fields.System.ChangedBy, the date of the comment in fields.System.ChangedDate and the parent workitem id in System.Parent
Using this information your REST service that receives the json object can create a comment on the parent work item using the Comments Rest API or post an update to the workitem where you set the System.History field to the value of the comment. This also allows you to set the original comment time and author, given that the user account you use in your automation has the permission Bypass rules on work item updates granted.
Drawbacks
If tasks can be moved from one user story to another, then the task comments on the user stories need to be moved. The same idea as above can be applied to solve this. By configuring a webhook for WorkItem updated you can listen for all updates to tasks.
By fetching the previous revision (Revision is found in resource.rev) from the Revision Rest API and comparing the field System.Parent you can determine whether the task has been moved or not and add the comments to the new parent and remove them from the old.
Similarly if you want to propagate comment updates and reactions, you would need to extend the webhook functionality even further.
We can see the odata.nextlink standard in the server driven paging for normal queries here. But there is no odata.nextlink standard mentioned in case of 1:N $expand queries in $expand docs.
Can someone please confirm OData standard for 1:N $expand queries please?
Example:
If we have multiple account_tasks for a single account, how the result should look like:
GET [Organization URI]/api/data/v9.1/accounts?$top=1&$expand=Account_Tasks($select=subject)
Option-1: Where data is shown in list inline till the page-size, and odata.nextLink is shown if data count exceeds the page-size. So, odata.nextLink will show the next set of results. (Similar to standard pagination here.)
{
"#odata.context": "[Organization URI]/api/data/v9.1/$metadata#accounts(name,Account_Tasks(subject,scheduledstart))",
"value": [
{
"#odata.etag": "W/\"37867294\"",
"name": "Contoso, Ltd. (sample)",
"accountid": "7a4814f9-b0b8-ea11-a812-000d3a122b89",
"Account_Tasks": [
{
"#odata.etag": "W/\"28876919\"",
"subject": "Task 1 for Contoso, Ltd.",
},
{
// More account_tasks here. No odata.nextLink if data count < page-size.
]
}
]
}
Option-2: We'll show empty results inline and provide an odata.nextLink to actual data.
{
"#odata.context": "[Organization URI]/api/data/v9.1/$metadata#accounts(name,Account_Tasks(subject,scheduledstart))",
"value": [
{
"#odata.etag": "W/\"37867294\"",
"name": "Contoso, Ltd. (sample)",
"accountid": "7a4814f9-b0b8-ea11-a812-000d3a122b89",
"Account_Tasks": [],
// Empty list shown above and URL given below will show the full results.
"Account_Tasks#odata.nextLink": "[Organization URI]/api/data/v9.1/accounts(7a4814f9-b0b8-ea11-a812-000d3a122b89)/Account_Tasks?$select=subject,scheduledstart"
}
]
}
Option-3: Where data is shown in list till page-size, and odata.nextLink is shown every time (even if data count is smaller than the page-size). So, the odata.nextLink will show the full expand results including inline results.
{
"#odata.context": "[Organization URI]/api/data/v9.1/$metadata#accounts(name,Account_Tasks(subject,scheduledstart))",
"value": [
{
"#odata.etag": "W/\"37867294\"",
"name": "Contoso, Ltd. (sample)",
"accountid": "7a4814f9-b0b8-ea11-a812-000d3a122b89",
"Account_Tasks": [
{
"#odata.etag": "W/\"28876919\"",
"subject": "Task 1 for Contoso, Ltd.",
},
{
// More account tasks here
],
"Account_Tasks#odata.nextLink": "[Organization URI]/api/data/v9.1/accounts(7a4814f9-b0b8-ea11-a812-000d3a122b89)/Account_Tasks?$select=subject,scheduledstart"
}
]
}
Thanks in advance.
Good question -- paging of nested results is often misunderstood.
Nested results are paged individually, so where the nested account_tasks for a particular account exceeds a sever-defined threshold, the account_tasks up to that threshold are included, along with a nextlink to retrieve the additional account_tasks for that account. Which, I believe, is your Option 1.
Note that, since the threshold is server-defined, it is also valid to have a threshold of 0, and only include a nextlink for the nested account_tasks. However, each account will still have a different nextlink, and following that nextlink will return only those account_tasks for the account in which the nextlink was returned.
Does that make sense?
How can i get multiple response on action on google console using dialogflow ?
i simulated on Action on google console but only two responses are showing on it
where as third response are not showing
here is my json response
{
"source": "webhook",
"data": {
"google": {
"is_ssml": true,
"permissions_request": null,
"expect_user_response": true
}
},
"messages": [
{
"type": 0,
"speech": "peter Got around 28 marks in maths. which is ranked 1 among 3 candidate in class 1"
},
{
"textToSpeech": "peter Got around 28 marks in maths. which is ranked 1 among 3 candidate in class 1",
"platform": "google",
"displayText": "peter Got around 28 marks in maths. which is ranked 1 among 3 candidate in class 1",
"type": "simple_response"
},
{
"textToSpeech": "Working",
"platform": "google",
"displayText": "Working",
"type": "simple_response"
},
{
"textToSpeech": "Working 2",
"platform": "google",
"displayText": "Working 2",
"type": "simple_response"
}
]
}
Here is my console output
any help regarding this is much appreciated
Thank you
Regards Saif
Only two simple responses will be accepted as a response. If you want more content you will need to consolidate your text into one of the two responses.
As you can see on the AoG Responses docs, it is specified as a requirement :
At most 2 chat bubbles per turn
So your third bubble won't display, as intended by Google.
As suggested in the previous answer from Nick, you need to consolidate your text and wrap everything in your 2 bubbles. In a simple response, you can line break by adding a \n where needed.
In a Basic Card however, you can access a limited subset of markdown, as stated in the docs link I provided, like that :
New line with a double space
**bold**
*italics*
Rich responses have the following requirements and optional properties that you can configure:
Supported on surfaces with the actions.capability.SCREEN_OUTPUT
capability.
The first item in a rich response must be a simple response.
At most two simple responses.
At most one basic card or StructuredResponse.
At most 8 suggestion chips. (you can add more than 8 also but you will get a warning not an error.)
Suggestion chips are not allowed in a FinalResponse
Linking out to the web from smart displays is currently not
supported.
I am using PayPal Rest API (SDK for Java) and when I submit a payment for excution (i.e. before the redirect) I get the error:
Excetpion e [{
"field": "transactions[0]",
"issue": "Item amount must add up to specified amount subtotal (or total if amount details not specified)"
}]]]
However the numbers are as follows (copy from my debug log) and add up and particularly the price of all items (there is only one) is exactly the subtotal
[[ tranaction t total 24.57]]
[[ tranaction t subtotal 19.8]]
[[ tranaction t tax 3.92]]
[[tranaction t shipping 0.85]]
[[tranaction t item[0] price 19.8]]
Anybody an idea whats up there?
Cheers
Tom
Reason is that I had below values and paypal then interprets the price as per item and not for the 2 items combined. Adaption then worked
"item_list": {
"items": [
{
"name": "PRODUCT_6",
"quantity": "2",
"price": "19.8",
"currency": "EUR"
}
]
}
I want to support pagination in my RESTful API.
My API method should return a JSON list of product via /products/index. However, there are potentially thousands of products, and I want to page through them, so my request should look something like this:
/products/index?page_number=5&page_size=20
But what does my JSON response need to look like? Would API consumers typically expect pagination meta data in the response? Or is only an array of products necessary? Why?
It looks like Twitter's API includes meta data: https://dev.twitter.com/docs/api/1/get/lists/members (see Example Request).
With meta data:
{
"page_number": 5,
"page_size": 20,
"total_record_count": 521,
"records": [
{
"id": 1,
"name": "Widget #1"
},
{
"id": 2,
"name": "Widget #2"
},
{
"id": 3,
"name": "Widget #3"
}
]
}
Just an array of products (no meta data):
[
{
"id": 1,
"name": "Widget #1"
},
{
"id": 2,
"name": "Widget #2"
},
{
"id": 3,
"name": "Widget #3"
}
]
ReSTful APIs are consumed primarily by other systems, which is why I put paging data in the response headers. However, some API consumers may not have direct access to the response headers, or may be building a UX over your API, so providing a way to retrieve (on demand) the metadata in the JSON response is a plus.
I believe your implementation should include machine-readable metadata as a default, and human-readable metadata when requested. The human-readable metadata could be returned with every request if you like or, preferably, on-demand via a query parameter, such as include=metadata or include_metadata=true.
In your particular scenario, I would include the URI for each product with the record. This makes it easy for the API consumer to create links to the individual products. I would also set some reasonable expectations as per the limits of my paging requests. Implementing and documenting default settings for page size is an acceptable practice. For example, GitHub's API sets the default page size to 30 records with a maximum of 100, plus sets a rate limit on the number of times you can query the API. If your API has a default page size, then the query string can just specify the page index.
In the human-readable scenario, when navigating to /products?page=5&per_page=20&include=metadata, the response could be:
{
"_metadata":
{
"page": 5,
"per_page": 20,
"page_count": 20,
"total_count": 521,
"Links": [
{"self": "/products?page=5&per_page=20"},
{"first": "/products?page=0&per_page=20"},
{"previous": "/products?page=4&per_page=20"},
{"next": "/products?page=6&per_page=20"},
{"last": "/products?page=26&per_page=20"},
]
},
"records": [
{
"id": 1,
"name": "Widget #1",
"uri": "/products/1"
},
{
"id": 2,
"name": "Widget #2",
"uri": "/products/2"
},
{
"id": 3,
"name": "Widget #3",
"uri": "/products/3"
}
]
}
For machine-readable metadata, I would add Link headers to the response:
Link: </products?page=5&perPage=20>;rel=self,</products?page=0&perPage=20>;rel=first,</products?page=4&perPage=20>;rel=previous,</products?page=6&perPage=20>;rel=next,</products?page=26&perPage=20>;rel=last
(the Link header value should be urlencoded)
...and possibly a custom total-count response header, if you so choose:
total-count: 521
The other paging data revealed in the human-centric metadata might be superfluous for machine-centric metadata, as the link headers let me know which page I am on and the number per page, and I can quickly retrieve the number of records in the array. Therefore, I would probably only create a header for the total count. You can always change your mind later and add more metadata.
As an aside, you may notice I removed /index from your URI. A generally accepted convention is to have your ReST endpoint expose collections. Having /index at the end muddies that up slightly.
These are just a few things I like to have when consuming/creating an API.
I would recommend adding headers for the same. Moving metadata to headers helps in getting rid of envelops like result , data or records and response body only contains the data we need. You can use Link header if you generate pagination links too.
HTTP/1.1 200
Pagination-Count: 100
Pagination-Page: 5
Pagination-Limit: 20
Content-Type: application/json
[
{
"id": 10,
"name": "shirt",
"color": "red",
"price": "$23"
},
{
"id": 11,
"name": "shirt",
"color": "blue",
"price": "$25"
}
]
For details refer to:
https://github.com/adnan-kamili/rest-api-response-format
For swagger file:
https://github.com/adnan-kamili/swagger-response-template
As someone who has written several libraries for consuming REST services, let me give you the client perspective on why I think wrapping the result in metadata is the way to go:
Without the total count, how can the client know that it has not yet received everything there is and should continue paging through the result set? In a UI that didn't perform look ahead to the next page, in the worst case this might be represented as a Next/More link that didn't actually fetch any more data.
Including metadata in the response allows the client to track less state. Now I don't have to match up my REST request with the response, as the response contains the metadata necessary to reconstruct the request state (in this case the cursor into the dataset).
If the state is part of the response, I can perform multiple requests into the same dataset simultaneously, and I can handle the requests in any order they happen to arrive in which is not necessarily the order I made the requests in.
And a suggestion: Like the Twitter API, you should replace the page_number with a straight index/cursor. The reason is, the API allows the client to set the page size per-request. Is the returned page_number the number of pages the client has requested so far, or the number of the page given the last used page_size (almost certainly the later, but why not avoid such ambiguity altogether)?
just add in your backend API new property's into response body.
from example .net core:
[Authorize]
[HttpGet]
public async Task<IActionResult> GetUsers([FromQuery]UserParams userParams)
{
var users = await _repo.GetUsers(userParams);
var usersToReturn = _mapper.Map<IEnumerable<UserForListDto>>(users);
// create new object and add into it total count param etc
var UsersListResult = new
{
usersToReturn,
currentPage = users.CurrentPage,
pageSize = users.PageSize,
totalCount = users.TotalCount,
totalPages = users.TotalPages
};
return Ok(UsersListResult);
}
In body response it look like this
{
"usersToReturn": [
{
"userId": 1,
"username": "nancycaldwell#conjurica.com",
"firstName": "Joann",
"lastName": "Wilson",
"city": "Armstrong",
"phoneNumber": "+1 (893) 515-2172"
},
{
"userId": 2,
"username": "zelmasheppard#conjurica.com",
"firstName": "Booth",
"lastName": "Drake",
"city": "Franks",
"phoneNumber": "+1 (800) 493-2168"
}
],
// metadata to pars in client side
"currentPage": 1,
"pageSize": 2,
"totalCount": 87,
"totalPages": 44
}
This is an interessting question and may be perceived with different arguments. As per the general standard meta related data should be communicated in the response headers e.g. MIME type and HTTP codes. However, the tendency I seem to have observed is that information related to counts and pagination typically are communicated at the top of the response body. Just to provide an example of this The New York Times REST API communicate the count at the top of the response body (https://developer.nytimes.com/apis).
The question for me is wheter or not to comply with the general norms or adopt and do a response message construction that "fits the purpose" so to speak. You can argue for both and providers do this differently, so I believe it comes down to what makes sense in your particular context.
As a general recommendation ALL meta data should be communicated in the headers. For the same reason I have upvoted the suggested answer from #adnan kamili.
However, it is not "wrong" to included some sort of meta related information such as counts or pagination in the body.
generally, I make by simple way, whatever, I create a restAPI endpoint for example "localhost/api/method/:lastIdObtained/:countDateToReturn"
with theses parameters, you can do it a simple request.
in the service, eg. .net
jsonData function(lastIdObtained,countDatetoReturn){
'... write your code as you wish..'
and into select query make a filter
select top countDatetoreturn tt.id,tt.desc
from tbANyThing tt
where id > lastIdObtained
order by id
}
In Ionic, when I scroll from bottom to top, I pass the zero value, when I get the answer, I set the value of the last id obtained, and when I slide from top to bottom, I pass the last registration id I got