What is the max size of a custom user attribute in KeyCloak? The official doc only describes how to create such attributes. If the size is limmited to 255 characters as default size of the string in a database then is there an ability to configure this size not modifying the source code?
Keycloak's attribute values maximum length is defined by its backend storage. The default setup uses PostgreSQL. Custom user attributes are stored in user_attribute table, which has value of type varchar(255).
You may want to change the field type to text.
Please make sure to backup your database first.
ALTER TABLE user_attribute ALTER COLUMN value TYPE TEXT;
Related
Also posted on super users:
I'm a spotfire novice trying to create a parameterized info link. Ultimate goal is to create a default template that may be customized to return specific rows in a very large table. I've not been able to cobble together enough information from online searches to get me from point A to Z.
Spotfire version is 7.11 on an Oracle 11.2 SE DB.
Currently I've got a date/time prompt in the info link that will be global to all users. What I need is to be able to further filter to 1 of 2 columns (one is real, the other a string) in order to minimize loading times. There are 17 other on-demand tables that are related to the main one. Limiting the initial query will greatly speed up performance.
In information designer for the information link, if I edit the SQL in the WHERE and explicitly define the value or string for the column, I get the rows I want. When I try to define it using an input parameter (?ParamName), I either get nothing when I reload or get asked to input a parameter "for testing".
Q1: In the document properties for the analysis, I've been adding in properties that I assume is supposed to get picked up by the query.
- What part do scripts play in passing this variable to the SQL?
- Do I just need to define a value for a property name or include a IronPython script? - If script is required, can I just define the parameter to pass?
Q2: In the info link SQL, what is the correct syntax for defining the parameter variable depending on the type (real v string)? If I use a string, I need to include LIKE in order to pick up the desired rows. If I use a real, is it possible to define it as a list of values?
Thanks in advance.
Though not exactly clear from your description, I think you should be able to accomplish your goals using the "Load on demand" dialog that is accessed either when you add your data table to your analysis, or subsequently using the Data Table Properties>Type of Data>Settings dialog.
Spotfire uses this dialog to dynamically modify your SQL. Thus, you do not need to explicitly include the LIKE statement in your SQL. Spotfire will add it in based on what you define in the On-Demand settings. For example, you could have an Input Field where you type a constraint that will be stored as a Document Property and then refer to that Document Property in your On-Demand settings to control the table loading.
I need to retrieve the value of a global property. The name of the property comes from a request.
I would like to replace string 'ContosoHeader' in {{ContosoHeader}} with the parameter value from an incoming request. Is there a way?
Not at this moment, no. Only if number of such properties is limited you could use 'set-variable' to fetch them statically and then 'choose' to decide what value to use.
Alternatively you could try to store multiple values in single variable, storing JSON for example. This way you'll need to fetch only single known property.
I am using azure cosmos db for saving and editing my session information. Currently i am not using ID in my document, instead i have another unique field with all docs. How can i update my query to get documents?
You can use whatever property you want, for your custom key (just make sure you don't remove its index). By default, all properties are indexed unless you explicitly set up a custom index policy that removes certain properties from being indexed.
You cannot eliminate the built-in id property though; if you don't set it explicitly, it will just be set to a guid.
If you are doing queries, this really shouldn't matter, functionality-wise. Just search on whatever properties you want. However: If you are doing point-reads (a read is more efficient, RU-wise, than a query, when retrieving a single document) you can only perform a point-read by specifying the id property, not your custom property. If you must use a custom property and you need to do point-reads, you can consider storing your custom property as id as well (as long as it's guaranteed to be unique per document).
Quick question.
I have a custom two-option field on an entity, with "Yes"/"No" as the values; "Yes" has the underlying value 1, while "No" has the underlying value 0. I've set the default value for this field to "Yes". However, when I create new entity records, the field always gets the value "No" (0 in the database). It seems to be ignoring the default value I've set. Why?
The field is not present on any of the entity forms, as it's only used in underlying plugin code. Should that matter?
Are you creating a new record for this entity using code that uses the strongly-typed objects? If so, when you create a "new" entity in code, I'm guessing the class itself is setting that field to "false" by default. I don't think those generated classes respect the default values in the metadata. I also think that all fields are submitted on a create when you use these generated classes. That means that your class is setting it to "no" by default and then on create, the system thinks that you explicitly set it to "no" so default values are not applied. I think you need to explicitly remove that attribute from the attribute collection of your entity before you create it. That way the system should respect the default value on create. Sorry for all the "I thinks" but I'm not in a place that I can test or verify all of this. :)
I am facing an issue with extended attributes on a document (trying to extend a document table). I created the original table’s PK (FDOC_NBR) in the extended table and linked the two via a foreignKey of the customized original table’s ojb entry (as an “extension” reference-descriptor). I created the bo and dd for the extension and customized the original document’s dd to add the new attributes. On the extended BO itself I also added members (with setters and getters) for the 2 new columns + for the PK column of documentNumber. I also added the new attributes to the documet’s jsp. The pertinent module definition was already extended to include custom dd, ojb, etc. files.
Indeed, when opening the document the new fields are shown- however, when trying to submit the document (regardless of doing anything with the new fields) I get an error-
Error Details: OJB operation; SQL []; ORA-01400: cannot insert NULL
into ("KFSTEM"."TEM_TRVL_ARRANGER_DOC_EXT_T"."FDOC_NBR") ; nested
exception is java.sql.SQLIntegrityConstraintViolationException:
ORA-01400: cannot insert NULL into
("KFSTEM"."TEM_TRVL_ARRANGER_DOC_EXT_T"."FDOC_NBR")
Seems like somehow the system tries to insert a value of NULL into the extension’s PK field, instead of the actual document number. Trying to debug this, in the action’s route method and all the way down to DocumentDaoOjb.save (which is as far down as I can go) I see the document with the real doc number is passed on, so the problem seems to be purely with ojb trying to set this number to the extension table.
Does anyone have any experience with extended attributes on documents that could help shed some light on this?
KFS is using the KNS, and in the Kuali Nervous System, the primary key on the extended attributes object must be set through manual intervention.
In this case, it looks as if you're adding an extended attribute to a transactional document, the Travel Arranger document (TAA), which simplifies things. Basically, you'll need to extend org.kuali.kfs.module.tem.document.TravelArrangerDocument and override prepareForSave to set the document number there (it may be set already since prepareForSave should be called several times during the routing process, but there's no real harm from overwriting that information as the base document's number will remain the same).
Hope this helps!