So I'm attempting to write something to mimic sharepoint's people picker. I was originally using Utility.ResolvePrincipal with some success, but it was only returning me a single user (obviously). So, I tried to use Utility.SearchPrincipal. Only that's not returning me anything. Here's what I have:
var user = Utility.ResolvePrincipal(_clientContext, _clientContext.Web, nameStart, PrincipalType.user, PrincipalSource.All, null, false);
var users = Utility.SearchPrincipals(_clientContext, _clientContext.Web, nameStart, PrincipalType.user, PrincipalSource.All, null, 10);
_clientContext.ExecuteQuery();
At this point, user.Value has a single user, and users is an empty list. What am I doing wrong?
I eventually solved the issue by changing the PrincipalSource.All call in Utility.SearchPrincipals to just PrincipalSource.UserInfoList. Apparently it was running into some security issue in one of the sets of users, and instead of throwing an error it was just returning an empty list.
Related
I'm trying to set up Two Factor Authentication on our app. Updated a user in AspNetUsers table and set it's TwoFactorEnabled value to 1 for testing.
While debugging, signInManager.PasswordSignInAsync return just "success", not "requires verification".
This is the line
signInStatus = await signInManager.PasswordSignInAsync(viewModel.Email, viewModel.Password, true, shouldLockout: false);
(Similar questions are generally answered as first value should be name instead of email but I don't think it's the issue. Login works correctly, for example if password is wrong it returns failure.)
I added the line below to Startup.Auth.cs too
app.UseTwoFactorSignInCookie(DefaultAuthenticationTypes.TwoFactorCookie, TimeSpan.FromMinutes(10));
I'm still able to work with what I have like this (though I don't want to)
if (signInStatus == SignInStatus.Success && user.TwoFactorEnabled == true)
{
//rest of code to be written
}
but this feels too makeshift of a solution and feels prone to many future errors. I'd prefer using Identity but I can't at the moment because of this problem.
It is obvious I'm doing something wrong or missing something but I don't know what. Thanks in advance.
I found my solution by copying the SignInManager code directly into mine and stepping through it, you can learn more about that here: https://stackoverflow.com/a/52357870/550975
SignInManager return RequiresVerification if :
dbo.ASpnetUsers has for user set to true TwoFactorEnabled and EmailConfirmed and user
email should be confirmed, email not be empty or null.
so I'm creating a bot using Node.JS / Discord.JS and I have a question.
On some servers, when you mention a user, it returns in the console as <#!userid> and on other it returns as <#userid>.
My bot has a simple points / level system, and it saves in a JSON file as <#!userid>, so on some servers when trying to look at a users points by mentioning them will work, and on others it won't.
Does anyone have any idea how to fix this? I've tried to find an answer many times, and I don't want to have it save twice, once as <#!userid> and then <#userid>. If this is the only way to fix it then I understand.
Thanks for your help!
The exclamation mark in the <#!userID> means they have a nickname set in that server. Using it without the exclamation mark is more reliable as it works anywhere. Furthermore, you should save users with their id, not the whole mention (the "<#userid>"). Parse out the extra symbols using regex.
var user = "<#!123456789>" //Just assuming that's their user id.
var userID = user.replace(/[<#!>]/g, '');
Which would give us 123456789. Their user id. Of course, you can easily obtain the user object (you most likely would to get their username) in two ways, if they're in the server where you're using the command, you can just
var member = message.guild.member(userID);
OR if they're not in the server and you still want to access their user object, then;
client.fetchUser(userID)
.then(user => {
//Do some stuff with the user object.
}, rejection => {
//Handle the error in case one happens (that is, it could not find the user.)
});
You can ALSO simply access the member object directly from the tag (if they tagged them in the message).
var member = message.mentions.members.first();
And just like that, without any regex, you can get the full member object and save their id.
var memberID = member.id;
Problem: I'm getting unexpected output from code that previously worked.
Code Problem:
sails.models.user.find().then(function (users){...});
is currently returning { id: 1 }
but should return an array of User objects like [{id:x, name:y},...]
Code Alterations:
sails.models.user.find().exec(function (err, users){...}); does not contain an error and returns the same as using .then() like above.
sails.models.user.findOne(1).then(function (users){...}); correctly returns a User like {id:x, name:y}.
sails.models.venue.find().then(function (venues){...}); returns an array of venues, just as substituting any other class besides User.
Note:
This code was previously working (it's a pretty simple line), and the only changes I made between it working and not working was running npm install (but it was previously working on heroku where which installed, so I don't think that was a problem) and changing the schema of User to add a few columns (I did this by deleting the User table in the DB, updating the Sails User model, and lifting the app in create mode, so the table exactly matches the model). Neither of these should cause a problem, but we all know how "should" and coding don't mix :P
How do I fix this? And why did this happen? Thanks :)
Realized other code was calling the package sails-mock-models which was doing its job. Totally forgot about that code. Problem solved.
Has anyone been able to get SSJS CreateAdministrationProcess to work? I have searched for functioning code but was not able to find any.
I am trying to create an adminP request in SSJS to set a users password. I can't use the ?changepassword in the url method because we do not allow web users access to the NAB.
I am using OAUTH and when I try to hash and update the password directly to the NAB it without an adminp request, it creates problems with the current client session, logging them out and then locking them out.
I assume this is because I changed the credential tokens on the server but not on the client and when it realizes this it thinks I'm trying to authenticate over and over and locks me out.
If I can't get the SSJS to work I am going to write it in a lotusscript agent and call the agent from SSJS, but for posterity sake I wanted to get AdminP requests to work from SSJS directly.
Here is my code:
var hashednew = session.hashPassword(thenewpw)
nabDoc.replaceItemValue("HTTPPassword",hashednew)
var dt:NotesDateTime = session.createDateTime("Today 12");
nabDoc.replaceItemValue("HTTPPasswordChangeDate",dt)
dt.recycle()
var nabServerAccessView:NotesView = nabDB.getView("($ServerAccess)")
nabDB.DelayUpdates = false;
var AdminP=sessionAsSigner.CreateAdministrationProcess("abcServerName/Co")
var AdminPNoteId=AdminP.SetUserPasswordSettings(#Name("[ABBREVIATE]" ,#UserName()), 0, 0, 0, True)
nabDoc.save(true,true)
nabServerAccessView.refresh()
It is crashing at the line:
var AdminP=sessionAsSigner.CreateAdministrationProcess("abcServerName/Co")
and the server error is:
Error calling method 'CreateAdministrationProcess(string)' on an object of type 'lotus.domino.local.Session [Static Java Interface Wrapper, lotus.domino.local.Session: lotus.d
AS A FOLLOWUP,
The original code I posted had more than the uppercase/lowercase issue, in practice. I was able to get it to work, but the way I was updating to the NAB directly was wrong. I found a better way to do the password change using SSJS with the following snippet, and it's pretty simple. Of course you have to validate the old password and complexity of the new password first, but once you've done that you can run the following:
try {
var AdminP=sessionAsSignerWithFullAccess.createAdministrationProcess(server)
var chgPW=AdminP.changeHTTPPassword(theuser,theoldpw,thenewpw)
} catch(e) {print("AdminProcess configure error: " + e)}
In my opinion the problem is in naming convention - Java methods start with lower case letters.
var AdminP=sessionAsSigner.createAdministrationProcess("abcServerName/Co")
var AdminPNoteId=AdminP.setUserPasswordSettings(#Name("[ABBREVIATE]" ,#UserName()), 0, 0, 0, True)
Please check your ACL settings: Is "Maximum internet name and password" set to "Manager" or "Designer"?
am a newbie, trying to write some basics extension. For my extension to work i need to initialize some data, so what I did is inside my background.js i declared something like this.
localStorage["frequency"] = 1; //I want one as Default value. This line is not inside any method, its just the first line of the file background.js
Users can goto Options page and change this above variable to any value using the GUI. As soon as the user changes it in UI am updating that value.
Now the problem is to my understanding background.js reloads everytime the machine is restarted. So every time I restart my machine and open Chrome the frequency value is changed back to 1. In order to avoid this where I need to initialize this value?
You could just use a specific default key. So if frequency is not set you would try default-frequency. The default keys are then still set or defined in the background.js.
I like to do that in one step, in a function like this
function storageGet(key,defaultValue){
var item = localstorage.getItem(key);
if(item === null)return defaultValue;
else return item;
}
(According to the specification localstorage must return null if no value has been set.)
So for your case it would look something like
var f = storageGet("frequency",1);
Furthermore you might be interested in checking out the chrome.storage API. It's used similar to localstorage but provides additional functionalities which might be useful for your extension. In particular it supports to synchronize the user data across different chrome browsers.
edit I changed the if statement in regard to apsillers objection. But since the specification says it's ought to be null, I think it makes sense to check for that instead of undefined.
This is another solution:
// background.js
initializeDefaultValues();
function initializeDefaultValues() {
if (localStorage.getItem('default_values_initialized')) {
return;
}
// set default values for your variable here
localStorage.setItem('frequency', 1);
localStorage.setItem('default_values_initialized', true);
}
I think the problem lies with your syntax. To get and set your localStorage values try using this:
// to set
localStorage.setItem("frequency", 1);
// to get
localStorage.getItem("frequency");