I have gone through various documents over net but could not find what is General Membership Query in IGMP. I can understand Group specific message query like it multicast router send query to for a specific group say 224.10.10.10 and all host interested in this group, reply to the router.
However, how this general query works, and what is its purpose? How clients respond to this query?
Thanks.
In IGMP V2;
General query is used to learn which groups have members on an attached network(type:0x11, group address:0.0.0.0).
Group-specific query is used to learn if particular group has any members on an attached network.(type:0x11, group address:group address that being queried)
IGMPv2 Membership Reports are generated by IGMPv2 hosts when they first join a multicast group, and are sent in response to IGMPv2 Membership Queries.
Related
I'm currently building an integration with Netsuite using the Suitetalk REST API. I would like to retrieve the role of each contact associated with a customer to find the Primary and Operational contacts of the customer.
I have tried querying the customer endpoint:
record/v1/customer/ {customerId} /contact/ {contactId} /contactrole
This query returns Role id 14 which is 'Customer Center' for all customer contact records. This is obviously incorrect as this information is returned for contacts tagged with different roles when I check them via the UI.
I have also tried using Suiteql using the query endpoint with the similar results.
Is the query incorrect or should I be using a different endpoint? I have been stuck for days, so I would appreciate any suggestion.
A long comment. Hopefully it helps focus your search for a solution.
Contact Roles is the subrecord for contacts who have login access to a customer's account. The role listed there is the access role. Customer Center is the default access role in a vanilla Netsuite account.
The Records Catalog has contactList as the joining table for contact to company. I don't see any mention of role there that would correspond to contactrole in the records browser so it appears some documenation is missing.
You'll likely have to play with the SuiteQL queries feature to get this.
See Executing SuiteQL Queries Through REST Web Services in the NS help.
with suiteql you can get primary contact with this
{ "q": "select cus.companyname,cus.contact,cont.entityid from customer cus left outer join contact cont on cus.contact=cont.id where cus.id=<<id of ur customer>>"}
This may be a simple question, but it's my first time setting-up a website this way and I need some advice please.
The setup:
I have two websites: WS1 & WS2, each with different domainnames.
They both point to the same IP using nginx server blocks and SSL is
setup for each domain name. I will be using Express.js with ArangoDB (where I can
add additional databases in ArangoDB to split-up the two sites in the
backend if necessary)
The problem:
Sometimes these two sites will be accessing the same info from the database and I would
prefer NOT having to duplicate the data but they will have different
authentications. Each site will have different account
authentications and page restrictions for each member of each site.
The question:
How would I set this up to ensure security, so that one account
doesn't get access to any other site? Do I need two separate frameworks in each server block? Should I create two databases? Best recommendations pls ?
This depends on your authorization framework.
Authentication identifies who is accessing your site, and part of that identity is the user, the company/domain, and the role/group they belong to.
Authorization is the description of what that user, company/domain, or role/group is allowed to access.
You probably know about cookies and username/passwords for the user identification. The user is stored in the database and mapped to the company/domain they belong to. and the user is also mapped to the role/group they belong to.
select userID, company from users where username = ?, $username
select group from groups where userID = ?, $userID
Some of the records in the database are probably scoped to a single domain/company and others to a role/group. You add the domain/company or role/group as a column on the database, and use it in your query.
select content from companyPages where company = ?
or
select content from groupPages where group in (select group from groups where userID = ?))
You can have users from multiple companies/domains using the same groups too.
And putting it together:
Select content from pages WHERE
group in (select group from groups where userID= ?)
AND company = (select company from users where userID=?);
Basically you have to define your authorization scheme and map it to your data model.
I have an existing notification feed, but I'm looking at possibly migrating over to GetStream.
Currently, I'm using Laravel Notifications, to notify users and other objects.
I currently have something like the following:
1) Users
2) Groups
3) Group Members
So, when I CRUD a group, I simply notify all members of the group and also the group ($group->notifications returns a collection), which works fine.
Looking through the GetStream docs though, it seems there is a concept of 'followers'.
Does this mean, that all members of a group need to be followers of each other to see all notifications?
What about other objects, like, retrieving a feed for a Group? Do i need another Group Type in the dashboard to save activities to?
So, If I Person A and Person B are members of Group 1, When Person A saves Group 1, I'd like Person A, to see something like:
You saved Group 1
and Person B will see:
Person A saved Group 1
When I view the Group page, I'd like to pull in the activities that have happened to that Group.
Is this possible?
Thanks
Does this mean, that all members of a group need to be followers of each other to see all notifications?
Probably not. Stream allows you setup feed groups, following relationships, and use "targeting" to send activities to different feeds.
Based on the use case you described, you're probably best off with two Feed Groups, e.g. group and user_timeline. You can give each user their own user timeline feed and set it to follow other group feeds as appropriate.
When a user does something involving the group, an activity can be added to the group feed. This activity then propagates out to all users who follow the group.
What about other objects, like, retrieving a feed for a Group? Do i need another Group Type in the dashboard to save activities to?
You can always create multiple feed groups for a given app. The example with two groups is probably sufficient for your use case but you could go further with 3 groups...
user: User events posted to this feed. This feed will handle specific and non-group specific activities. If the activity relates to a group, the "to" field can be populated with the group feed name and this will cause the activities to be copied to that feed (and in turn propagated to it's followers).
user_timeline: Retrieved by users. Follows group feeds. User's may also follow another user's user_timeline feed in order to receive all events by that user (e.g. an asymmetrical follow like Twitter / or symmetrical follow like Facebook)
group: Receives user generated activities via the 'to' targetting. System/admin generated activities may also be add directly to the feed.
I have a query that get accounts for a business unit based on a set criteria. When using one business unit, the query works find and brings back the results. Running the same code, changing only the business unit, running with a different business unit, the result come back empty.
If I run this query in HeidiSQL it works for both business units.
Another feature to this problem is in the bad business unit, a Customer Care Rep can not get the results, yet Customer Care Supervisor can. In the good business unit, both can get the results.
This leads me to think there is a problem with security. However I have compared both business units teams and roles and they match.
Is there something else, that I am overlooking that could stop a team from getting data from the database.
From: https://andrewbschultz.com/2011/08/09/business-units-bus-and-security-roles-in-microsoft-dynamics-crm-2011-solution-exports/
Without BUs, the following security configurations would be possible:
A user could have access to his own CRM records
A user could have access to all CRM records
With BUs, the following additional security
configurations are possible:
A user can have access to all records owned by users in his business
unit
A user can have access to all records owned by users in his own
and any child business units
My understanding is that if the records are owned by a user from BU1, then users in BU2 won't be able to access them until ownership is transfered to a user in BU2.
In order to have users in both BUs access the same records, you have to share all of them with at least one (or maybe all) users in BU2.
We have a Salesforce app where we have some custom objects and want to expose the various custom object rcords to customers.
We need to ensure that customers can see only the records belonging to their Account. Because of the way these records are setup(owned by various system users at different levels of processing), we cannot use owner based sharing...and cannot use criteria based sharing since its not dynamic(I cant use criteria based sharing to say "Share this record with all customer portal users who belong to the same Account as the record" at runtime).
So I know I have to use Apex based sharing. I have read up on the sharing objects and the sharing table. But how would I approach this.
I can write a trigger which upon inserting will create a share object and get all userids who belong to the customer portal group and whose account equals the account of the record and associate them with the share object of the record.
But I feel this is overkill correct? Lets say there are 5 users from one of our customers and lets say there are 500 records created a day...that means 2500 share objects a day just for 1 customer...for 10 customers this can go upto 25000...and scale in this way...
Am I right here?
Another problem would be if a new person joined that customer team..unless another process updates the sharing on older records, he/she cannot see the older records.
So is there a better/elegant way to do this? I thought of adding a share object to the group...but there is just one group "Customer portal group" and how do I associate the group with the account of the users?
I will appreciate any thoughts about this.
You should take a look at high-volume customer portal users. They're much cheaper relative to standard customer portal users and should meet your needs. Unlike regular users they have a totally different sharing concept. In a nutshell if they own an object they can see, if not they can't. You can then extend this based on whether a contact or account lookup on the object matches the logged in user.
Read up on this documentation:
License Types (scan to High Volume Customer Portal)
Granting High-Volume Portal Users Access to Records (login required)
You can use groups for sharing to avoid creating so many sharing records. You would have one group per account and one sharing record per account. Instead of managing thousands of sharing records you would have to manage hundreds of groups.
I haven't tried this approach with this many groups, but I read some time ago that it should work (someone posted using a LOT of groups for sharing). If you do try this, please tell us if it worked OK.