I want to create a new Calendar under the user main account using expo-calendar (if possible)
I'm able to retrieve currently existing calendars including a "custom" one (for instance I have a "Family" calendar in my account:
which I am able to get information about with expo-calendar:
{
"calendars": [
{
"allowsModifications": true,
"title": "Famille",
"name": "Famille",
"isVisible": true,
"ownerAccount": "ACCOUNT_ID#group.calendar.google.com",
"color": "#7BD148",
"source": {
"isLocalAccount": false,
"type": "com.google",
"name": "EMAIL#gmail.com"
},
"isPrimary": false,
"id": "1",
"accessLevel": "editor",
"timeZone": "UTC",
"allowedAttendeeTypes": [
"none",
"required",
"optional"
],
"isSynced": true,
"allowedAvailabilities": [
"busy",
"free"
],
"allowedReminders": [
"default",
"alert",
"email"
]
},
...
I'm also able to create events in my main account (which are correctly created and synced) by retrieving my main account CalendarId and adding events in it.
Also, by simply following the example, I can create a local calendar and add events in it. but it stays local, not synced with my other devices
Now what I want to do is creating a new "calendar" (like the Family one) under my main user account using expo-calendar.
I know I can create a calendar via the web interface of google calendar and probably use it then, but is it possible to create it with expo-calendar?
I have tried a few things:
Creating a calendar with the same source as my main calendar, and the same ownerAccount. It creates the calendar, but I can neither see it in google agenda nor events created in it, and then it is removed by OS within a minute most of the time anyway.
creating a calendar with a new source (but copy pasted from the one on my main account)
setting the "isSynced" to true and to false
using a "owner" access level
none of it is working
So my questions are:
Is it only possible to create a new Calendar and sync it with a google account from expo-calendar?
If it is... how can I do it?
By the way, I see the "Family" Calendar in the list of calendars, but not the "Reminders", or "Events" one. I guess they are some specials, protected calendars?
Related
I have a product/update Shopify webhook. When the webhook event comes, I see the JSON payload but I don't get any clue about who updated the product. I need the username or email or whatever to identify the user who triggered the webhook. Is that even possible ? If yes, how ?
As per Shopify Documentation, product/update hook does not contain any information regarding the user who triggered the action. However, if it is extremely important for you to find out the user, a workaround is to use the Shopify Events API. As you already have the Product ID in the recieved webhook, you may issue another call to
GET /admin/products/#{product_id}/events.json
and in the response
{
"events": [
{
"id": 677313116,
"subject_id": 921728736,
"created_at": "2008-01-10T08:00:00-05:00",
"subject_type": "Product",
"verb": "create",
"arguments": [
"IPod Touch 8GB"
],
"body": null,
"message": "Product was created: IPod Touch 8GB.",
"author": "Shopify",
"description": "Product was created: IPod Touch 8GB.",
"path": "/admin/products/921728736"
}
]
}
you will have the author field. You may further filter the result using verb and created_at fields.
The supported events are
But I am also only able to get the created, published and unpublished events.
I am new to Dialogflow so my question may be too simple. However, I do not understand what is the purpose of naming actions in Dialogflow. I have watched videos on youtube and people in them are using actions when they have a webhook. For example they may have an if condition in their source code
(e.g. in python
if action == 'action_name':
...
)
which executes something particular in this case.
However the json output which is retrieved by the source code has the following form:
{
"id": "123d9e8e-314f-451b-8b15-5e3b55baa980",
"timestamp": "2018-03-16T17:03:05.987Z",
"lang": "en",
"result": {
"source": "agent",
"resolvedQuery": "Hello",
"action": "input.welcome",
"actionIncomplete": false,
"parameters": {},
"contexts": [],
"metadata": {
"intentId": "effe6b2b-3372-4f89-882f-ff937b2b2abb",
"webhookUsed": "false",
"webhookForSlotFillingUsed": "false",
"intentName": "Welcome"
},
"fulfillment": {
"speech": "Hello, how can I help you?",
"messages": [
{
"type": 0,
"speech": "Hello, how can I help you?"
}
]
},
"score": 1
},
"status": {
"code": 200,
"errorType": "success",
"webhookTimedOut": false
},
"sessionId": "491d57cb-0af2-45ac-a658-9e47ec6658ce",
"alternativeResultsFromKnowledgeService": {}
}
Since the json data contains the IntentName why to bother naming an unique action for this specific intent when you can get directly the name of the intent in your json?
I tend to think of this in two ways, depending on exactly what I'm building. (Or sometimes a combination of these two ways.)
The Intent Name is a human-usable name, while the Action is something that is more intended for use by the webhook and more directly maps to a function.
Since you can have more than one Intent use the same Action, it can be convenient to map a few different ways the user may say something (and the parameters they may send along with them) to the same method. While you could do that by listing all the different Intent names in your code, it is easier to do that on the Dialogflow side.
In truth - use whatever works best for you. I tend to name my Intents and my Actions very similarly, but do branching based on what makes the most sense for the code (which sometimes also includes other values that may be sent).
I create an event using the POST /4.0/legacyvm3/teams/{team}/events function with the following data:
{
"name": "My Event",
"category": "event",
"type": "Conference",
"industry": "Corporate",
"start_time": "2017-05-10T10:00:00.000Z",
"end_time" : "2017-05-10T11:00:00.000Z",
"spaces": [
{
"name": "My Room"
}
]
}
and get the following response:
{"id":2474582,"user_id":138947,"team_id":"49992","name":"My Event","category":"event","venue_mapper_version":2,"start_time":"2017-05-10T10:00:00.000Z","end_time":"2017-05-10T11:00:00.000Z","uses_metric":false,"public":false,"attendee_management":true,"spaces":[{"id":4696516,"name":"My Room","event_id":2474582,"space_order":0}]}
All good. But when editing the event in my browser using the URL:
https://app.socialtables.com/?event=2474582
I am prompted to select a value for Industry and Type. Also, the start and end times are both appear as 11:00. Why is this?
Start and end times look correct given that our API assumes you're using UTC (I see 6 and 7am EDT) when I open your event. It also was 10 and 11 in the response you posted.
Probably more importantly, you're using our legacy API and are therefore being pushed to our legacy product. There is a 4.0/events endpoint available to use. If you're writing your integration now I strongly recommend using these endpoints: https://developer.socialtables.com/api-console#!/Events/post_4_0_events
I am trying to store our a campaign attribution identifier offline so that we can do some very custom analytics on the response. Our business team has very specific criteria for determining repeat user activities in our system that can't be tracked with normal analytics, at least not in a very simple way. They need to know how individual users were referred to our system via campaigns, links, etc.
I believe this is as simple as using branch.io to generate a link with specific data in that link. Then, assuming that user ever clicked that link, we should be able to, from our app, use the branch.io SDK to call out to branch.io, retrieve the attribution information, and then pass it to our own servers.
Is this use case possible with branch.io, and am I thinking of it correctly?
Create a branch.io link with a unique referral source
User clicks on that link which may or may not take them to an install
Eventually the user installs our app
On registration within our app we query branch.io using the SDK and ask it for existing attribution information associated to that user.
We make an API call to our own services and pass down whatever we got from branch.io and the user's ID to persist in our own analytics database.
Please let me know if this is possible and if we're thinking of it correctly. I believe this is fundamentally the same use case as custom on-boarding but need to verify for our management team before we bother to implement.
The client-to-server technique that you have described in your response will absolutely work with Branch! If you are interested in a server-to-server approach, your best bet would be to create a webhook from your Dashboard account for the Install event. When installs are referred you'll notice that the json data included in the response will have:
{
"metadata": {
"ip": "<purposely stripped out>",
"referred": true
},
"os": "iOS",
"session_referring_click_timestamp": "2016-02-09T15:57:23.411Z",
"session_referring_click_query": {},
"os_version": "9.2.1",
"first_referring_click_timestamp": "2016-02-09T15:57:23.411Z",
"first_referring_link_data": {
"date_ms": 1455033416690,
"date_sec": 1455033416,
"date": "2016-02-09T15:56:56.690Z",
"data": {
"$og_title": "Jingles Bingleheimer",
"$publicly_indexable": 1,
"face_index": "2",
"~creation_source": 3,
"$identity_id": "225633246304569572",
"monster": "true",
"+url": "https://bnc.lt/ALMc/pkZbNmazPq",
"$one_time_use": false,
"~id": "225633381004658863",
"~channel": "sms",
"body_index": "1",
"monster_name": "Matts Monster",
"$exp_date": 0,
"color_index": "4"
},
"branch_id": "225633381004658863",
"app_short_identifier": "625048",
"domain": "bnc.lt",
"channel": "sms",
"state": 1,
"href": "/ALMc/pkZbNmazPq"
},
"first_referring_click_query": {},
"event": "install",
"event_timestamp": "2016-02-09T15:57:51.019Z",
"session_referring_link_data": {
"date_ms": 1455033416690,
"date_sec": 1455033416,
"date": "2016-02-09T15:56:56.690Z",
"data": {
"$og_title": "Jingles Bingleheimer",
"$publicly_indexable": 1,
"face_index": "2",
"~creation_source": 3,
"$identity_id": "225633246304569572",
"monster": "true",
"+url": "https://bnc.lt/ALMc/pkZbNmazPq",
"$one_time_use": false,
"~id": "225633381004658863",
"~channel": "sms",
"body_index": "1",
"monster_name": "Matts Monster",
"$exp_date": 0,
"color_index": "4"
},
"branch_id": "225633381004658863",
"app_short_identifier": "625048",
"domain": "bnc.lt",
"channel": "sms",
"state": 1,
"href": "/ALMc/pkZbNmazPq"
},
"hardware_id": "<purposely stripped out>"
}
As you can see, it will include the referring link information in the response.
In general, installs will be referred if:
The user clicks on a Branch link and there is an identity associated to the link.
The user installing the app has not installed the app in the past.
Also, webhook documentation can be found here and the SDK will need to be integrated with your app so that Branch can understand that an Install event has occurred.
Note: You can also create webhooks on custom events such as "sign_up_complete" as well.
I'm building a RESTful API that exposes my application's users as users.
My application also features 'documents' and each user has access to specific documents. I'm thinking the natural way to represent that is by exposing the accessible documents through users/{user-id}/documents.
However, from a usability perspective, it's important for my clients to be able to fetch (and modify) the users that have access to a specific document. Because of that I'm considering 'reversing' this representation to documents/{document-id}/users.
Do these (and especially the latter) seem like proper ways to model this relationship? If I do go with such a solution, how do I model 'granting access to a document'?
I'm leaning towards PUTing a pre-existing user (presumably acquired by GETing users) into documents/{document-id}/users/{user-id}. That seems unsatisfactory however, as I'll be doing an 'update' operation not to actually update the resource but to insert it into a collection. It is especially problematic in terms of semantics as I expect my server-side to ultimately not take into account the complete, sent user representation but rather only cross-reference the id with ids of pre-existing users in order to create an association.
On the other hand, I can't POST into documents/{document-id}/users as I'm not aiming at the creation of a new resource - I specifically don't want one to be created.
Am I doing it wrong?
The users don't really belong to the document resource, right? What you're really saying is these users have access to this document. So what should probably be returned from /documents/{document-id}/users is not a direct representation of the user entity, but instead some kind of representation of the user's permission to the entity. Perhaps inside of that representation is a link to the full user itself.
So, if you were returning the Collection+JSON media type, maybe you'd have something like:
{
"collection":
{
"version":"1.0",
"href":"/documents/document123",
"items":
[
{
"href":"/documents/document123/users/user3841",
"data": [
{ "name":"userName", "value":"John Doe", "prompt":"User Name" },
{ "name":"permissions", "value":["Read"], "prompt":"User Permissions" }
],
"links": [
{ "rel":"user", "href":"/users/3841" }
]
},
{
"href":"http//whatever/documents/document123/users/user9387",
"data": [
{ "name":"userName", "value":"John Doe", "prompt":"User Name" },
{ "name":"permissions", "value":["Read"], "prompt":"User Permissions" }
],
"links": [
{ "rel":"user", "href":"/users/9387" }
]
}
]
}
}