I couldn't find specific scenario related this case in RFC 4006(Obsolate). They have made it clear in latest RFC 8506.
For example I granted quota for rating group 0 and 1(CCA-I). Now gateway reports used quota(CCR-U) for rating group 0. Should I send(CCA-U) all available quota again in answer or should I send the one that got reported along with requested service units for different rating group?
At this point I am sending all the available rating groups in CCA-U
Always respond to the Rating Groups which were requested.
I don't have a reference to the RFC but below a dump from a real-life flow. See CCA's containing only RGs which were listed in the CCR's:
Related
I have YITH Membership + Subscription plugins together, and shop has virtual downloadable products. When Membership / Subscription is active and user has access to a single product, then on a single product page is widget with available downloads – for free or for credits.
How to check if user has access to a single product? It doesn’t matter if can download or not, just if subscription / membership for a product is active. I couldn’t find any solution. I found only this function bellow, but even if I passed proper user ID and product ID to it, this “subscriptions” array is empty, so it says “no active subscriptions” and it’s not truth. I use this code in functions.php
Subscription or membership can be checked, as they both together can be active or not.
https://erlycoder.com/how-to-check-active-subscription-using-yith-woocommerce-subscription/
I added function „CheckStatus” to functions.php and checked if product_id and user_id have values, but subscriptions array is still empty.
I am using microsoft cognitive service face API for my project for face recognision.
I want to add 1000+ faces in the single "FaceList" instead of creating 64 different face lists.
I will have more than 10,000+ users in a group. Then I want to use "Find Similar" API with all my photos in the same "FaceList" to find match faces.
Is there any way to achieve this functionality?
Unfortunately, A face list still can have a maximum of 1000 faces for now. Also, you can only specify one unique candidate face list in the Find Similar request API for now.
We realize that it's very important to customers and Face API is more popular today. Azure cognitive Team has paid attention to this . You can also upvote this idea in this UserVoice Page. If Cognitive Team has any process on this, you will be noticed.
Hope this helps!
Alternatively, you can create a personGroup then add the 1000+ face to the persons in this personGroup. And then use Identify to find the person matches with your input image.
The S0 tier subscriptions have these limits: 10,000 Persons per Person Group, 100M Persons total and 1M Person Groups per subscription.
I am setting up Azure API Management with 2 different products that offer different access and restrictions to the underlying API.
Ideally I would like subscriptions for each product to have a different length of time that the user can access them for before it needs to be renewed. I am not finding any type of auto-expiration date for subscriptions when I approve them.
Is there a way to do this that I am missing?
You can create product specific policies that check the time since the subscription was created and deny access if necessary. See context.Subscription.StartDate here https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-ca/library/dn910913.aspx
my company is running peoplesoft 8.49 and i'm looking for a way to determine which users have either had new roles granted to them or had roles removed within the past year.
i can clearly see which users have what roles in the PSROLEUSER table, but there is no modification date on those records. we do not have row-level auditing enabled either.
i'm looking for any suggestions on how to get a complete population of the role grants/revocations for a given period.
No, you can't get that information until and unless you create a process that would maintain such information. Have a look at this link, explains pretty well how Audit process needs to be developed for your requirement.
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.