I've written an app to publish some events via the open graph api to facebook. For most of the events this works fine. But some events facebook denies:
"OAuthException: (#100) Invalid event name specified: event_info-name"
I searched the facebook doc but I couldn't find a detailed description how the link has to look alike. I convert it to utf8 with utf8_encode (PHP). I guess that the string length is limited. If so: How long can the string be? Are there some other restrictions?
Thanks, Michael
I created events with different name lengths an it seems that the max event name size is 74 characters (one with a length of 75 or more throws the "(#100) Invalid event name specified").
I think the characters in the name are pretty flexible. My titles had " and ' among others and showed up fine, without encoding, on the event page.
What events do you have coded for your application in the application settings See: https://developers.facebook.com/apps/{YOUR_APP_ID}/opengraph
I get the same error, but there appears to be STOP keywords but not sure where they are. If anyone is getting this error you might also want to look at Facebook Graph Error (#100) Invalid event name specified: event_info-name
As of January 2015 there's no character limit for event names. There's been a torrent of troll events here in Poland where people copypasted whole 100k character long books or pi number with 100k or so decimal places. The names were cut short in the event pages but in notifications page the whole names are displayed, cluttering it into oblivion.
Related
I am attempting to preview a track via the 7digital api. I have utilised the reference app to test the endpoint here:-
http://7digital.github.io/oauth-reference-page/
I have specified what I consider to be the correct format query, as in:-
http://previews.7digital.com/clip/8514023?oauth_consumer_key=MY_KEY&country=gb&oauth_nonce=221946762&oauth_signature_method=HMAC-SHA1&oauth_timestamp=1456932878&oauth_version=1.0&oauth_signature=c5GBrJvxPIf2Kci24pq1qD31U%2Bs%3D
and yet, regardless of what parameters I enter I always get an invalid signature as a response. I have also incorporated this into my javascript code using the same oauth signature library as the reference page and yet still get the same invalid signature returned.
Could someone please shed some light on what I may be doing incorrectly?
Thanks.
I was able to sign it using:
url = http://previews.7digital.com/clip/8514023
valid consumer key & consumer secret
field 'country' = 'GB'
Your query strings parameters look a bit out of order. For OAuth the base string, used to sign, is meant to be in alphabetical order, so country would be first in this case. Once generated it doesn't matter the order in the final request, but the above tool applies them back in the same order (so country is first).
Can you make sure there aren't any spaces around your key/secret? It doesn't appear to strip white space.
If you have more specific problems it may be best to get in touch with 7digital directly - https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/7digital-api
I've been trying to use facebook graph api public search.
It works just fine for english search queries, for example,
http://graph.facebook.com/search?q=watermelon%20&type=post
On the other hand, while setting a non english search result, I'm also receiving only english results, but non of the results in a result in the language of the search query.
For example,
http://graph.facebook.com/search?q=ביבי&type=post
Does not return any relevant result (the search query is "ביבי" , a word in Hebrew. None of the returned results are in Hebrew).
What could I do to fix it ?
Any suggestion will be helpful.
Thanks in advance.
To receive response in a locale which is different from your computer default locale, you should specify it with the request. Right now there are 2 ways to do that:
use &locale=he_IL in the URL (list of Facebook locales), e.g.
https://graph.facebook.com/search?q=YOUR_QUERY&type=post&fields=message&locale=he_IL
use Accept-Language header with your request, e.g.
'Accept-Language': 'he_IL,he,iw;q=0.9'
Recently, the first approach had a bug (now it works well), so I would use both of them (the first one will have more priority then another).
Note: Search across the specified locale will return posts available in this locale.
I searched on Google and StackOverflow to find a answer to my question but I can't find one.
I'd like to store the access_token to my database for offline access and I'd like to be sure to specify the correct length of my column.
I can't even find if it's just a number or a mix between number and strings.
I work at Facebook and I can give a definitive answer about this.
Please don't put a maximum size on the storage for an access token. We expect that they will both grow and shrink over time as we add and remove data and change how they are encoded.
We did give guidance in one place about it being 255 characters. I've updated the blog post that had that information and updated our new access token docs to include a note about sizes:
https://developers.facebook.com/docs/facebook-login/access-tokens/
Sorry for the confusion.
With Facebook's recent move to encrypted access tokens, the length of the access token can be up to 255 characters. If you're storing the access token in your database, the column should be able to accommodate at least varchar(255). Here's an excerpt from Facebook's Developer blog from October 4, 2011:
"With the Encrypted Access Token migration enabled, the format of the access token has changed. The new access token format is completely opaque and you should not take any dependency on the format in your code. A varchar(255) field will be sufficient to store the new tokens."
Full blog post here: https://developers.facebook.com/blog/post/572
This answer is no longer correct, and I can't find a corrected value in FB's docs. We have been receiving access tokens that are longer than 255 characters. We're moving from VARCHAR to a SMALLTEXT instead to try to future-proof things.
From section 1.4 of The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Protocol (draft-ietf-oauth-v2-22)
Access tokens can have different formats, structures, and methods
of utilization (e.g. cryptographic properties) based on the
resource server security requirements. Access token attributes and
the methods used to access protected resources are beyond the scope
of this specification and are defined by companion specifications.
I looked for the "companion specifications" but didn't find anything relevant and in section 11.2.2 it states
o Parameter name: access_token
o Parameter usage location: authorization response, token response
o Change controller: IETF
o Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]
Which seems to indicate that the access_token parameter is defined within this spec. Which I guess the parameter is but the actual access token isn't fully fleshed out.
Update:
The latest version of this writing of the specification (draft-ietf-oauth-v2-31) includes an appendix that defines better what to expect from the access_token parameter
A.12. "access_token" Syntax
The "access_token" element is defined in Section 4.2.2 and
Section 5.1:
access-token = 1*VSCHAR
So essentially what this means is that the access_token should be at least 1 character long but there is no limit on how long defined in this specification.
Note they define VSCHAR = %x20-7E
Facebook access token can be longer than 255 characters. I had a lot of errors like ActiveRecord::StatementInvalid: PG::StringDataRightTruncation: ERROR: value too long for type character varying(255) where the value was facebook access token. Do not use string type column because its length is limited. You can use text type column to store tokens.
Recently, our app has been seeing them longer than 100 characters. I'm still looking for documentation so I can figure out a 'safe' field size for them.
I'll update the answer from the time spend.
From the OAuth2 documentation,
The access token string size is left undefined by this specification. The client should avoid making assumptions about value sizes. The authorization server should document the size of any value it issues.
(Section 4.2.2 of this document)
Note: Facebook is using OAuth2, as mentionned on this page.
So now, no informations seems to be available on the developers portail of Facebook about the length of the OAuth token. Yahoo seems to use a 400 bit long token, so it's best to assume that a TEXT column in MySQL is safer than a varchar.
I was wondering if anyone knew how the thread-index field in email headers work?
Here's a simple chain of emails thread indexes that I messaged myself with.
Email 1 Thread-Index: AcqvbpKt7QRrdlwaRBKmERImIT9IDg==
Email 2 Thread-Index: AcqvbpjOf+21hsPgR4qZeVu9O988Eg==
Email 3 Thread-Index: Acqvbp3C811djHLbQ9eTGDmyBL925w==
Email 4 Thread-Index: AcqvbqMuifoc5OztR7ei1BLNqFSVvw==
Email 5 Thread-Index: AcqvbqfdWWuz4UwLS7arQJX7/XeUvg==
I can't seem to say with certainty how I can link these emails together. Normally, I would use the in-reply-to field or references field, but I recently found that Blackberrys do NOT include these fields. The only include Thread-Index field.
They are base64 encoded Conversation Index values. No need to reverse engineer them as they are documented by Microsoft on e.g. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms528174(v=exchg.10).aspx and more detailed on http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee202481(v=exchg.80).aspx
Seemingly the indexes in your example doesn't represent the same conversation, which probably means that the software that sent the mails wasn't able to link them together.
EDIT: Unfortunately I don't have enough reputation to add a comment, but adamo is right that it contains a timestamp - a somewhat esoteric encoded partial FILETIME. But it also contains a GUID, so it is pretty much guarenteed to be unique for that mail (of course the same mail can exist in multiple copies).
There's a good analysis of how exactly this non-standard "Thread-Index" header appears to be used, in this post and links therefrom, including this pdf (a paper presented at the CEAS 2006 conference) and this follow-up, which includes a comment on the issue from the evolution source code (which seems to reflect substantial reverse-engineering of this undocumented header).
Executive summary: essentially, the author eventually gives up on using this header and recommends and shows a different approach, which is also implemented in the c-client library, part of the UW IMAP Toolkit open source package (which is not for IMAP only -- don't let the name fool you, it also works for POP, NNTP, local mailboxes, &c).
I wouldn't be surprised if there are mail clients out there which would not be able to link Blackberry's mails to their threads. The Thread-Index header appears to be a Microsoft extension.
Either way, Novell Evolution implements this. Take a look at this short description of how they do it, or this piece of code that finds the thread parent of a given message.
I assume that, because the lengths of the Thread-Index headers in your example are all the same, these messages were all thread starts? Strange that they're only 22-bytes, though I suppose you could try applying the 5-bytes-per-message rule to them and see if it works for you.
If you are interested in parsing the Thread-Index in C# please take a look at this post
http://forum.rebex.net/questions/3841/how-to-interprete-thread-index-header
The snippet you will find there will let you parse the Thread-Index and retrieve the Thread GUID and message DateTime. There is a problem however, it does not work for all Thread-Indexes out there. Question is why do some Thread-Indexes generate invalid DateTime and what to do to support all of them???
I have a couple search forms, 1 with ~50 fields and the other with ~100. Typically, as the HTML spec says, I do searches using the GET method as no data is changed. I haven't run into this problem yet, but I'm wondering if I will run out of URL space soon?
The limit of Internet Explorer is 2083 characters. Other browsers, have a much higher limit. I'm running Apache, so the limit there is around 4000 characters, which IIS is 16384 characters.
At 100 fields, say average field name length of 10 characters, that's already 5000 characters...amazing on the 100 field form, I haven't had any errors yet. (25% of the fields are multiple selects, so the field length is much longer.)
So, I'm wondering what my options are. (Shortening the forms is not an option.) Here my ideas:
Use POST. I don't like this as much because at the moment users can bookmark their searches and perform them again later--a really dang nice feature.
Have JavaScript loop through the form to determine which fields are different than default, populate another form and submit that one. The user would of course bookmark the shortened version.
Any other ideas?
Also, does anyone know if the length is the encoded length or just plain text?
I'm developing in PHP, but it probably doesn't make a difference.
Edit: I am unable to remove any fields; I am unable to shorten the form. This is what the client has asked for and they often do use a range of fields, in the different categories. I know that it's hard to think of a form that looks nice with this many fields, but the users don't have a problem understanding how it works.
Are your users actually going to be using all 50-100 fields to do their searches? If they're only using a few, why not POST the search to an "in between" page which header()-redirects them to the results page with only the user-changed fields in the URL? The results page would then use the default values for the fields that don't exist in the URL.
To indirectly address your question, if I was faced with a 100-field form to fill in on one page, I'd most likely close my browser, it sounds like a complete usability nightmare.
My answer is, if there's a danger that I'm getting anywhere near that limit for normal usage of the form, I'm probably Doing It Wrong.
In order of preference, I would
Split the form up and use some server-side state retention
Switch to POST, and then generate and redirect to a shorter URL on POST that resolved to the same result
Give up ;)
You mention in a comment that many of the fields "are hidden and can be opened as required".
If you are willing to discard graceful degradation, you could always actually add and remove the fields from the form, rather than just hiding and showing them: the browser won't submit the ones that aren't included in the form.
This is a variant of the "Make and model" forms that online insurance etc. pages use -- select the make, submit back to the server and get the list of models for that manufacturer.
If you don't mind using javascript then you could have it work out the length of the query string and if it is too long then switch to a post. Then have some sort of url mapper to allow them to bookmark these posted searches.
Use post and if the user bookmarks the search, save it in a database and give it a unique token, then redirect to the search page using GET and passing the token as parameter.
TinyURL is a nice example: You give it a very long URL, it saves it to a DB, gives you a unique identifier for that URL and later you can request the long URL using that identifier.
In PHP it would be something along the lines of:
<?php
if (isset($_GET['token']))
{
$token = addslashes($_GET['token']);
$qry = mysql_query("SELECT fields FROM searches WHERE token = '{$token}'");
if ($row = mysql_fetch_assoc($qry))
{
performSearch(unserialize($row['fields']));
exit;
}
showError('Your saved search has been removed because it hasn\'t been used in a while');
exit;
}
$fields = addslashes(serialize($_POST));
$token = sha1($_SERVER['REMOTE_ADDR'].rand());
mysql_query("INSERT INTO searches (token, fields, save_time) Values ('{$token}', '{$fields}', NOW())");
header('Location: ?token='.$token);
exit;
?>
And run a script daily:
<?php
mysql_query('DELETE FROM searches WHERE save_time < DATE_ADD(NOW(), INTERVAL -200 DAY)');
?>
Also, does anyone know if the length
is the encoded length or just plain text?
My guess was for encoded length. I made a simple test: a textarea and a submit button to a simplistic PHP script.
Loaded the page in IE6, pasted some French text in the textarea, 2000 characters. If I hit the submit button, nothing. I had to reduce the length of the text to be able to submit.
In other words, the 2083 character limit is exactly the maximal length of the URL found in the address bar after submitting the GET request.
I would go for the JavaScript solution: on submit, analyze the form, create a secondary form with hidden attributes, and submit that.
Some strategies on shortening the output:
As you point out, you can already skip all values left to default (no field, no value).
If you have a form like the one at Processing forum search you can group all checkbox states in one variable only, eg. using letter encoding.
Use short value attributes (in select for example).
Note: if the search page is actually composed of several independent forms, where users fill only one section or another, you can make several separate forms.
Might not apply to your case and might seems obvious but worth mentioning for the record... ^_^
One could philosophically look at the search submission POST as the creation of a saved search (especially when a search is as complex an object as the one your users are making). In this case, you could accept the post for the creation of a search and then redirect using a GET to fetch the appropriate search results (post/redirect/get).
This would also allow the users to bookmark the search results (GET) to coming back at any time to re-run the search.
Get can have one advantage if your search results can be shared, in case of post request if you send the link to someone, that person won't see any search results