Is there a way to specify that a session should be ended, or to clear out the memory of previous actions? In my testing (simulator only) I'm seeing a couple cases where Bixby is remembering a previous entry that isn't relevant anymore.
Example utterances
remove wet diaper
wet diaper
In this case there's 2 possible enums that can be said. "actionType" that is optional, in this case "remove" and "statType", in this case "wet diaper".
What is happening is on the second phrase it's caching the actionType. So, the second phrase my JavaScript still receives the "remove" even though it's not included.
I haven't tried this on an actual device (only the simulator) so it's possible this is just a simulation quirk.
This is kind of related to this question. There was a follow-up comment that the OP asked related to session management.
How does Bixby retain data from a previous NL input?
So, if you read that link. Is there a way I can signal to bixby that the conversation is over, or at least to not remember previous entries for the action?
One way would be to use the transient feature. Here is more information
For example, alter your input type so it doesn't carry over across executions.
name (ActionType) {
features {
transient
}
}
make sure all input types are NL friendly. name/enum concepts are meant for NL and you can attach vocabulary to them.
I used to have a similar issue like yours, in my case, my problem was related to the type of the 'requires' property inside the input-group declared in my action.model.bxb.
You need to handle by separate this two input cases in diferent action.model.bxb files:
In one of them you might have something like (model 1):
input-group(removeWeaper){
requires (OneOrMoreOf)
collect{
input (ActionType) {
type (Type)
min (Optional)
}
input (StatType) {
type (Type)
min (Optional)
}
}
Here, Bixby Will know that at least one of these properties will be apear in your input and will be waiting for an input with that structure.
In the other file you might have (model 2):
input-group(Weaper){
requires (OneOf)
collect{
input (StatType) {
type (Type)
min (Optional)
}
}
Here, Bixby will be waiting to catch an input that contains only one of the indicated values in you input.
(model 1) This could be ok only if you run 'wet diaper' by first time, also when you try again and run 'remove wet diaper' it might work, the problem is when you run again 'wet diaper' because Bixby Stores you previous approach including "remove". i'm not sure if there is something to clear the stored values, but, here is when (model 2) will help you to catch only the input 'wet diaper' as a different statement.
I share you this work around as my own experience, and i hope this could help you solving or getting another perspective of how you could handle or solve your problem.
Related
Using serenity-js, with cucumber and screenplay, i can't get to pass data from one step to another. E.g. : a "When" step defined by a pretty user.attempsTo() that simply calls a webservice, and a "Then" step that should simply checks the response of the webservice. "TakeNote" forgets the data of the previous step ( as i could see, even surprising) and "LastResponse" context might be lost also...
I guess there is a simple way to store an object (as a Question maybe) in one Activity of the "When" step, and get back this object in an Activity of the "Then" step.
Without Serenity, i would use a World object that is clearly a simple way to do the job, but i'm sure there a Serenity pretty way to do the trick.
Thank you.
Bruno
I tried to pass the object with LastResponse, with TakeNotes. But the object seems to be lost.
I found what was wrong (answering to myself).
user.attempsTo() is actually processed prior to the next step only if a resolution of the promise is asked, so if preceded by return, or await, or if it is declared as an implicit return using arrow function like this ( user :Actor) => attempsTo(...) ).
Without the promise resolution, interactions are not executed in the described sequence, and this is really no good.
The symptom for a bad code is that the interactions are not logged in their steps, but in step further. Hope this helps.
It seems to be a simple question but I have a hard time to find an answer to it. I already have a project with several parameters (project and database parameters). I would like to obtain the LCA results for several scenarios with my parameters having different values each time. I was thinking of the following simple procedure:
change the parameters' value,
update the exchanges in my project,
calculate the LCA results.
I know that the answer should be in the documentation somewhere, but I have a hard time to understand how I should apply it to my ProjectParameters, DatabaseParameters and ActivityParameters.
Thanks in advance!
EDIT: Thanks to #Nabla, I was able to come up with this:
For ProjectParameter
for pjparam in ProjectParameter.select():
if pjparam.name=='my_param_name':
break
pjparam.amount = 3
pjparam.save()
bw.parameters.recalculate()
For DatabaseParameter
for dbparam in DatabaseParameter.select():
if dbparam.name=='my_param_name':
break
dbparam.amount = 3
dbparam.save()
bw.parameters.recalculate()
For ActivityParameter
for param in ActivityParameter.select():
if param.name=='my_param_name':
break
param.amount = 3
param.save()
param.recalculate_exchanges(param.group)
You could import DatabaseParameter and ActivityParameter iterate until you find the parameter you want to change, update the value, save it and recalculate the exchanges. I think you need to do it in tiers. First you update the project parameters (if any) then the database parameters that may depend on project parameters and then the activity parameters that depend on them.
A simplified case without project parameters:
from bw2data.parameters import ActivityParameter,DatabaseParameter
# find the database parameter to be updated
for dbparam in DatabaseParameter.select():
if (dbparam.database == uncertain_db.name) and (dbparam.name=='foo'):
break
dbparam.amount = 3
dbparam.save()
#there is also this method if foruma depend on something else
#dbparam.recalculate(uncertain_db.name)
# here updating the exchanges of a particular activity (act)
for param in ActivityParameter.select():
if param.group == ":".join(act.key):
param.recalculate_exchanges(param.group)
you may want to update all the activities in the project instead of a single one like in the example. you just need to change the condition when looping through the activity parameters.
I'm trying to write a step that will match the following steps that are similar and capture parameters:
Step1: And I delete the filter(s) using the "UI"
Step2: Then I delete the filter(s) using the "API" for "doc-browser" context
Step3: I delete the filter(s) using the "API" for "doc-browser" context with user "file_user2"
I don't want to create 3 separate steps, they all start with I delete the filter using the #{arg} and the last 2 just extend on that.
I thought this was going to accomplish it:
And(/^I delete the filter\(s\) using the "([^"]*)"(?: for "([^"]*)" context| with user "([^"]*)")?/) do |delete_method, context, user|
case delete_method
when 'API'
if user.nil?
SearchFilters.new.delete_global_local_filters(delete_method, api_context_val: context)
else
SearchFilters.new.delete_global_local_filters(delete_method, { api_context_val: context, username: user })
end
when 'UI'
SearchFilters.new.delete_global_local_filters(delete_method, filter_name: #filter_name)
end
end
However, I'm not capturing my username.
Is it possible to accomplish having one step definition that captures all 3 variations and still captures my arguments?
Just duplicating my mailing list answer in case anyone else is interested in this question.
I understand you don't want to use three different steps, but in this case you really should because
The implementation of each step is a clear one liner, so you are removing a case statement.
The regex for this step is horrible and you will be removing that
Each individual step provides the opportunity to simplify the parameters being passed, you have 2 API and one UI paramter which can just be removed entirely (if I understand the code correctly you can remove all the params and regexs)
This is a clear case where a little bit of repetition is a price well worth paying for a simpler implementation.
Reducing the number of step definitions by using regex's and params is often an anti-pattern.
All best
Andrew
I'm now stuck on the problem of getting user input (what user says) in my index.js. For example, the user says: please tell me if {animals} can live between temperature {x} to {y}. I want to get exact value (in string) for what animals, x and y so that I can check if it is possible in my own server. I am wondering how to do that since the entities need to map to some exact key values if I annotate these three parameters to some entities category.
The methods for ApiAiApp is very limited: https://developers.google.com/actions/reference/nodejs/ApiAiApp
And from my perspective, none of the listed methods work in this case.
Please help!
Generally API.AI entities are for some set of known values, rather than listening for any value and validating in the webhook. First, I'd identify the kinds of entities you expect to validate against. For the temperatures (x and y), I'd use API.AI's system entities. Calling getArgument() for those parameters (as explained in the previous answer) should return the exact number value.
For the animals, I'd use API.AI's developer entities. You can upload them in the Entity console using JSON or CSV. You can enable API.AI's automated expansion to allow the user to speak animals which you don't support, and then getArgument() in webhook the webhook will return the new value recognized by API.AI. You can use this to validate and respond with an appropriate message. For each animal, you can also specify synonymous names and when any of these are spoken, and getArgument() will return the canonical entity value for that animal.
Extra tip, if you expect the user might speak more than one animal, make sure to check the Is List box in the parameter section of the API.AI intent.
If "animals", "x", and "y" are defined as parameters in your Intent in API.AI, then you can use the getArgument() method defined in ApiAiApp.
So the following should work:
function tempCheck( app ){
var animals = app.getArgument('animals');
var x = app.getArgument('x');
var y = app.getArgument('y');
// Check the range and then use something like app.tell() to give a response.
}
I have a cakephp 1.3 application and I have run into a 'data leak' security hole. I am looking for the best solution using cake and not just something that will work. The application is a grade tracking system that lets teachers enter grades and students can retrieve their grades. Everything is working as expected but when I started to audit security I found that the basic CRUD operations have leaks. Meaning that student X can see student Y's grades. Students should only see their own grades. I will limit this questions to the read operation.
Using cake, I have a grade_controller.php file with this view function:
function view($id = null) {
// Extra, not related code removed
$this->set('grade', $this->grade->read(null, $id));
}
And
http://localhost/grade/view/5
Shows the grade for student $id=5. That's great. But if student #5 manipulates the URL and changes it to a 6, person #6's grades are shown. The classic data leak security hole.
I had two thoughts on the best way to resolve this. 1) I can add checks to every CRUD operations called in the controller. Or 2) add code to the model (for example using beforeFind()) to check if person X has access to that data element.
Option #1 seems like it is time consuming and error prone.
Option #2 seem like the best way to go. But, it required calling find() before some operations. The read() example above never executes beforeFind() and there is no beforeRead() callback.
Suggestions?
Instead of having a generic read() in your controller, you should move ALL finds, queries..etc into the respective model.
Then, go through each model and add any type of security checks you need on any finds that need to be restricted. 1) it will be much more DRY coding, and 2) you'll better be able to manage security risks like this since you know where all your queries are held.
For your example, I would create a getGrade($id) method in my Grade model and check the student_id field (or whatever) against your Auth user id CakeSession::read("Auth.User.id");
You could also build some generic method(s) similar to is_owner() to re-use the same logic throughout multiple methods.
If CakePHP supports isAuthorized, here's something you could do:
Create a column, that has the types of users (eg. 'student', 'teacher', ...)
Now, it the type of User is 'student', you can limit their access, to view only their data. An example of isAuthorized is as follows. I am allowing the student to edit only their profile information. You can extend the concept.
if ((($role['User']['role'] & $this->user_type['student']) == $this->user_type['student']) {
if (in_array($this->action, array('view')) == true) {
$id = $this->params->pass[0];
if ($id == $user_id) {
return (true);
}
}
}
}