According to the SSO documentation for IA these attributes should be available (I'm guessing a bit at the attributes URI):
First Name (http://axschema.org/namePerson/first)
Last Name (http://axschema.org/namePerson/last)
Realm Id (http://axschema.org/intuit/realmId)
Reviewing the query string passed during stage 3 of the open id request, here are the attributes present:
openid.alias3.type.alias1 => http://axschema.org/namePerson
openid.alias3.value.alias1 => Full Name
openid.alias3.type.alias2 => http://axschema.org/contact/email
openid.alias3.value.alias2 => email#test.com
Bug, error in the documentation, or loose nut behind the keyboard?
Two problems here, the first problem is in my haste of cut and paste coding I was only requesting the full name and email. I revised the code to request first name, last name, and realm id. Now first name and last name come through fine. However, it took a big of poking around to get to the bottom of the realm id issue. First, the documentation did not give a clear answer on the attribute uri; however, I was able to find a clear answer on this thread https://idnforums.intuit.com/textthread.aspx?catid=69&threadid=16954. Paul Jackson gives a clear idea what is going on here:
The attribute for realm id is http://axschema.org/intuit/realmId
Sometimes the attribute does not come through
I put together a technique based on his suggestion in this thread. Basically, if the realm id does not come through then I'll parse it from the referring url which has it in the query string as realmId. Clearly, this is brittle but provides a "working" solution for now.
Here is a code snippet you can use during stage 3 of the handshake.
_realmId = fetch.GetAttributeValue(OpenId.IntuitWellKnownRealmId);
if (_realmId == null && httpRequest.UrlReferrer != null)
{
var url = httpRequest.UrlReferrer.ToString();
var i = url.IndexOf('?');
if (i != -1)
{
var querystring = url.Substring(i);
_realmId = System.Web.HttpUtility.ParseQueryString(querystring)["realmId"];
}
}
I take zero credit for this solution, Paul already had it figured out. Just posting here to help anyone searching on this problem.
Related
I'm calling a REST API with a SharePoint Designer workflow on SharePoint online. I'm setting the column name with a variable, and when i put the variable into my URL to call it it says "Column [name] does not exist".
Annoying part is when I call just /items? I can see the column in the result, but if I try select it or filter by it I get 'does not exist'. I have alot of these columns similarly named, and I get the error for all of them.
I am using the internal name, I have tried adding "OData_" to the front. I've tried typing the url manually in the browser and entering values (incase the variable was causing issues) but I get the same error, column does not exist. but i can see it them I call all items. :(
so I have quite a few columns with naming convention "[Q#] Score [#]" eg "Q4 Score 2". The internal name that's clearly appearing in the full items results is "Q4_x0020_Score_x0020_2".
This works:
https://MYSITE.sharepoint.com/sites/portal/intranet/CorpServices/QSR/_api/web/lists/GetbyTitle('Audit')/Items?
and I get big full normal REST results that includes the line:
0
However if I try:
https://MYSITE.sharepoint.com/sites/portal/intranet/CorpServices/QSR/_api/web/lists/GetbyTitle('Audit')/Items?$Select=Q4_x0020_Score_x0020_2
Then I get:
-2146232832, Microsoft.SharePoint.SPExceptionColumn 'Q4_x0020_Score_x0020_2' does not exist. It may have been deleted by another user.
I expect to be able to select that column (and the dozens like it) but none work. I've searched all similar problems on the forum and they've usually got a spelling mistake or forgot the ODATA_ but i cant seem to get the problem. Please help.
It seemed to be working intermittently.... So it was in fact just a naming error...... Half of the columns were [Q#]_x0020_Score_x0020_[#] and half were [Q#]_x0020_score_x0020_[#]. The word "Score" was capitalized on some and not others. I Didn't realize the HTTP Calls were case sensitive. Now I have added a bunch of if statements to handle the different variations haha. Thanks for reading.
Judging by the naming convention you are on an older version of SharePoint. The x0020 is the value for a space. Ideally when you first create the column you would name it without the spacing. For example UserInformation. Then come in and edit the name after the fact and call it User Information. If you click on the title name and look at the URL, you will see what the actual name of the column is at the end of the URL. It is case sensitive because you can have a column named score and Score which is ultimately why it wasn't working.
Must load all fields like this
var lists = context.Web.Lists;
context.Load(lists);
context.ExecuteQuery();
CamlQuery query = new CamlQuery();
query.ViewXml = #"";
var list = lists.GetById("file.guid");
var listitems = list.GetItems(query);
context.Load(listitems);
context.ExecuteQuery();
var creationInformation = new ListItemCreationInformation();
var newItem=list.AddItem(creationInformation);
var fields = list.Fields;
context.Load(fields);
context.ExecuteQuery();
TLDR: What is request.resource.data.size() counting in the firestore rules when writing, say, some booleans and a nested Object to a document? Not sure what the docs mean by "entries in the map" (https://firebase.google.com/docs/reference/rules/rules.firestore.Resource#data, https://firebase.google.com/docs/reference/rules/rules.Map) and my assumptions appear to be wrong when testing in the rules simulator (similar problem with request.resource.data.keys().size()).
Longer version: Running into a problem in Firestore rules where not being able to update data as expected (despite similar tests working in the rules simulator). Have narrowed down the problem to point where can see that it is a rule checking for request.resource.data.size() equaling a certain number.
An example of the data being passed to the firestore update function looks like
Object {
"parentObj": Object {
"nestedObj": Object {
"key1": Timestamp {
"nanoseconds": 998000000,
"seconds": 1536498767,
},
},
},
"otherKey": true,
}
where the timestamp is generated via firebase.firestore.Timestamp.now().
This appears to work fine in the rules simulator, but not for the actual data when doing
let obj = {}
obj.otherKey = true
// since want to set object key name dynamically as nestedObj value,
// see https://stackoverflow.com/a/47296152/8236733
obj.parentObj = {} // needed for adding nested dynamic keys
obj.parentObj[nestedObj] = {
key1: fb.firestore.Timestamp.now()
}
firebase.firestore.collection('mycollection')
.doc('mydoc')
.update(obj)
Among some other rules, I use the rule request.resource.data.size() == 2 and this appears to be the rules that causes a permission denied error (since commenting out this rules get things working again). Would think that since the object is being passed with 2 (top-level) keys, then request.resource.data.size()=2, but this is apparently not the case (nor is it the number of keys total in the passed object) (similar problem with request.resource.data.keys().size()). So there's a long example to a short question. Would be very helpful if someone could clarify for me what is going wrong here.
From my last communications with firebase support around a month ago - there were issues with request.resource.data.size() and timestamp based security rules for queries.
I was also told that request.resource.data.size() is the size of the document AFTER a successful write. So if you're writing 2 additional keys to a document with 4 keys, that value you should be checking against is 6, not 2.
Having said all that - I am still having problems with request.resource.data.size() and any alternatives such as request.resource.size() which seems to be used in this documentation
https://firebase.google.com/docs/firestore/solutions/role-based-access
I also have some places in my security rules where it seems to work. I personally don't know why that is though.
Been struggling with that for a few hours and I see now that the doc on Firebase is clear: "the request.resource variable contains the future state of the document". So with ALL the fields, not only the ones being sent.
https://firebase.google.com/docs/firestore/security/rules-conditions#data_validation.
But there is actually another way to ONLY count the number of fields being sent with request.writeFields.size(). The property writeFields is a table with all the incoming fields.
Beware: writeFields is deprecated and may stop working anytime, but I have not found any replacement.
EDIT: writeFields apparently does not work in the simulator anymore...
How does one use Firebase to do basic auto-completion/text preview?
For example, imagine a blog backed by Firebase where the blogger can tag posts with tags. As the blogger is tagging a new post, it would be helpful if they could see all currently-existing tags that matched the first few keystrokes they've entered. So if "blog," "black," "blazing saddles," and "bulldogs" were tags, if the user types "bl" they get the first three but not "bulldogs."
My initial thought was that we could set the tag with the priority of the tag, and use startAt, such that our query would look something like:
fb.child('tags').startAt('bl').limitToFirst(5).once('value', function(snap) {
console.log(snap.val())
});
But this would also return "bulldog" as one of the results (not the end of the world, but not the best either). Using startAt('bl').endAt('bl') returns no results. Is there another way to accomplish this?
(I know that one option is that this is something we could use a search server, like ElasticSearch, for -- see https://www.firebase.com/blog/2014-01-02-queries-part-two.html -- but I'd love to keep as much in Firebase as possible.)
Edit
As Kato suggested, here's a concrete example. We have 20,000 users, with their names stored as such:
/users/$userId/name
Oftentimes, users will be looking up another user by name. As a user is looking up their buddy, we'd like a drop-down to populate a list of users whose names start with the letters that the searcher has inputted. So if I typed in "Ja" I would expect to see "Jake Heller," "jake gyllenhaal," "Jack Donaghy," etc. in the drop-down.
I know this is an old topic, but it's still relevant. Based on Neil's answer above, you more easily search doing the following:
fb.child('tags').startAt(queryString).endAt(queryString + '\uf8ff').limit(5)
See Firebase Retrieving Data.
The \uf8ff character used in the query above is a very high code point
in the Unicode range. Because it is after most regular characters in
Unicode, the query matches all values that start with queryString.
As inspired by Kato's comments -- one way to approach this problem is to set the priority to the field you want to search on for your autocomplete and use startAt(), limit(), and client-side filtering to return only the results that you want. You'll want to make sure that the priority and the search term is lower-cased, since Firebase is case-sensitive.
This is a crude example to demonstrate this using the Users example I laid out in the question:
For a search for "ja", assuming all users have their priority set to the lowercased version of the user's name:
fb.child('users').
startAt('ja'). // The user-inputted search
limitToFirst(20).
once('value', function(snap) {
for(key in snap.val()){
if(snap.val()[key].indexOf('ja') === 0) {
console.log(snap.val()[key];
}
}
});
This should only return the names that actually begin with "ja" (even if Firebase actually returns names alphabetically after "ja").
I choose to use limitToFirst(20) to keep the response size small and because, realistically, you'll never need more than 20 for the autocomplete drop-down. There are probably better ways to do the filtering, but this should at least demonstrate the concept.
Hope this helps someone! And it's quite possible the Firebase guys have a better answer.
(Note that this is very limited -- if someone searches for the last name, it won't return what they're looking for. Hence the "best" answer is probably to use a search backend with something like Kato's Flashlight.)
It strikes me that there's a much simpler and more elegant way of achieving this than client side filtering or hacking Elastic.
By converting the search key into its' Unicode value and storing that as the priority, you can search by startAt() and endAt() by incrementing the value by one.
var start = "ABA";
var pad = "AAAAAAAAAA";
start += pad.substring(0, pad.length - start.length);
var blob = new Blob([start]);
var reader = new FileReader();
reader.onload = function(e) {
var typedArray = new Uint8Array(e.target.result);
var array = Array.prototype.slice.call(typedArray);
var priority = parseInt(array.join(""));
console.log("Priority of", start, "is:", priority);
}
reader.readAsArrayBuffer(blob);
You can then limit your search priority to the key "ABB" by incrementing the last charCode by one and doing the same conversion:
var limit = String.fromCharCode(start.charCodeAt(start.length -1) +1);
limit = start.substring(0, start.length -1) +limit;
"ABA..." to "ABB..." ends up with priorities of:
Start: 65666565656565650000
End: 65666665656565650000
Simples!
Based on Jake and Matt's answer, updated version for sdk 3.1. '.limit' no longer works:
firebaseDb.ref('users')
.orderByChild('name')
.startAt(query)
.endAt(`${query}\uf8ff`)
.limitToFirst(5)
.on('child_added', (child) => {
console.log(
{
id: child.key,
name: child.val().name
}
)
})
I'm building a form with Yii that updates two models at once.
The form takes the inputs for each model as $modelA and $modelB and then handles them separately as described here http://www.yiiframework.com/wiki/19/how-to-use-a-single-form-to-collect-data-for-two-or-more-models/
This is all good. The difference I have to the example is that $modelA (documents) has to be saved and its ID retrieved and then $modelB has to be saved including the ID from $model A as they are related.
There's an additional twist that $modelB has a file which needs to be saved.
My action code is as follows:
if(isset($_POST['Documents'], $_POST['DocumentVersions']))
{
$modelA->attributes=$_POST['Documents'];
$modelB->attributes=$_POST['DocumentVersions'];
$valid=$modelA->validate();
$valid=$modelB->validate() && $valid;
if($valid)
{
$modelA->save(false); // don't validate as we validated above.
$newdoc = $modelA->primaryKey; // get the ID of the document just created
$modelB->document_id = $newdoc; // set the Document_id of the DocumentVersions to be $newdoc
// todo: set the filename to some long hash
$modelB->file=CUploadedFile::getInstance($modelB,'file');
// finish set filename
$modelB->save(false);
if($modelB->save()) {
$modelB->file->saveAs(Yii::getPathOfAlias('webroot').'/uploads/'.$modelB->file);
}
$this->redirect(array('projects/myprojects','id'=>$_POST['project_id']));
}
}
ELSE {
$this->render('create',array(
'modelA'=>$modelA,
'modelB'=>$modelB,
'parent'=>$id,
'userid'=>$userid,
'categories'=>$categoriesList
));
}
You can see that I push the new values for 'file' and 'document_id' into $modelB. What this all works no problem, but... each time I push one of these values into $modelB I seem to get an new instance of $modelA. So the net result, I get 3 new documents, and 1 new version. The new version is all linked up correctly, but the other two documents are just straight duplicates.
I've tested removing the $modelB update steps, and sure enough, for each one removed a copy of $modelA is removed (or at least the resulting database entry).
I've no idea how to prevent this.
UPDATE....
As I put in a comment below, further testing shows the number of instances of $modelA depends on how many times the form has been submitted. Even if other pages/views are accessed in the meantime, if the form is resubmitted within a short period of time, each time I get an extra entry in the database. If this was due to some form of persistence, then I'd expect to get an extra copy of the PREVIOUS model, not multiples of the current one. So I suspect something in the way its saving, like there is some counter that's incrementing, but I've no idea where to look for this, or how to zero it each time.
Some help would be much appreciated.
thanks
JMB
OK, I had Ajax validation set to true. This was calling the create action and inserting entries. I don't fully get this, or how I could use ajax validation if I really wanted to without this effect, but... at least the two model insert with relationship works.
Thanks for the comments.
cheers
JMB
I'm using a plugin and want to perform an action based on the records statuscode value. I've seen online that you can use entity.FormattedValues["statuscode"] to get values from option sets but when try it I get an error saying "The given key was not present in the dictionary".
I know this can happen when the plugin cant find the change for the field you're looking for, but i've already checked that this does exist using entity.Contains("statuscode") and it passes by that fine but still hits this error.
Can anyone help me figure out why its failing?
Thanks
I've not seen the entity.FormattedValues before.
I usually use the entity.Attributes, e.g. entity.Attributes["statuscode"].
MSDN
Edit
Crm wraps many of the values in objects which hold additional information, in this case statuscode uses the OptionSetValue, so to get the value you need to:
((OptionSetValue)entity.Attributes["statuscode"]).Value
This will return a number, as this is the underlying value in Crm.
If you open up the customisation options in Crm, you will usually (some system fields are locked down) be able to see the label and value for each option.
If you need the label, you could either do some hardcoding based on the information in Crm.
Or you could retrieve it from the metadata services as described here.
To avoid your error, you need to check the collection you wish to use (rather than the Attributes collection):
if (entity.FormattedValues.Contains("statuscode")){
var myStatusCode = entity.FormattedValues["statuscode"];
}
However although the SDK fails to confirm this, I suspect that FormattedValues are only ever present for numeric or currency attributes. (Part-speculation on my part though).
entity.FormattedValues work only for string display value.
For example you have an optionset with display names as 1, 2, 3,
The above statement do not recognize these values because those are integers. If You have seen the exact defintion of formatted values in the below link
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-in/library/microsoft.xrm.sdk.formattedvaluecollection.aspx
you will find this statement is valid for only string display values. If you try to use this statement with Integer values it will throw key not found in dictionary exception.
So try to avoid this statement for retrieving integer display name optionset in your code.
Try this
string Title = (bool)entity.Attributes.Contains("title") ? entity.FormattedValues["title"].ToString() : "";
When you are talking about Option set, you have value and label. What this will give you is the label. '?' will make sure that the null value is never passed.