The Agora.io doc is specifing for the joinChannel method :
The user ID. A 32-bit unsigned integer with a value ranging from 1 to
(2^32 -1). This parameter must be unique. If uid is not assigned (or set
as 0), the SDK assigns a uid and reports it in the joinChannelSuccess
callback. The app must maintain this user ID.
I have 2 use cases :
For the users registered to my app : i want the app to assign an uid
For the users not registered to my app : I want to let agora.io decide of the uid
The issue is that doing so, I may get into collisions between userIds assigned by the app and usersIds assigned by agora lib.
But if you are assigning uids within a range of values (other than 1 -> 2^32) then i could rely on that.
Is it the case ?
thx.
in this case, i think you can use the string user name to join the channel. You can take a look at this doc: https://docs.agora.io/en/faq/string
Related
As per this comment, I'm trying to use numeric channel IDs in my telethon code, so that I don't end up spamming the Telegram API with expensive name lookup calls and getting throttled, but I'm having some difficulty.
e.g. assuming I've already instantiated and connected client:
messages = client.get_messages(numeric_channel_id)
...fails with this error:
ValueError: Could not find the input entity for PeerUser(user_id=[numeric_channel_id]) (PeerUser)
I think there's some cacheing going on, because if I do a get_entity call using the account name first, then the get_messages call works. i.e. something like this:
client.get_entity(channel_name_which_belongs_to_numeric_channel_id)
messages = client.get_messages(numeric_channel_id)
That works just fine, but now I'm doing the expensive get_entity(name) call which is what I'm trying to avoid (because it will result in FloodWaitError problems).
Is there any way I can use the numeric ID of a channel to avoid the expensive get_entity call, in this scenario?
I've also tried forcing the entity type to Channel, like this:
channel = Channel(id=numeric_channel_id, title=None, photo=None, date=None)
messages = client.get_messages(channel)
...but the results are the same, except that the error mentions PeerChannel rather than PeerUser
ID usage is not going to work unless you cached the target as you stated, that's the only way to use the integer id.
you must have met the entity from events or manual requests (say, username fetching).
you should be using client.get_input_entity('username')
it will try to search the local cache first for the saved id + hash that equals the passed username, if found it won't do ResolveUsername (heavy one) and use the local access_hash + id and return you an inputPeer. you pass that to any request you want.
you mustn't use id alone unless you're certain you have met its holder, in other words, id you use has to be something you found out from within the library and within the same session, not something you knew/found out externally.
There is no magical way to fetch something with id you claim you know, if you actually know it, the lib has to create (when the access_hash is present) an InputPeer
As the other answer states, fetching by username will always work but is expensive. However note that such a call will fill the cache so it can later be fetched again much more cheaply by ID.
If you really need a stable reference to some entity and cannot rely on the session cache, and want to avoid usernames, the documentation for Entities vs. Input Entities may be helpful.
What it boils down to is, you can do this:
print(await client.get_input_entity('username'))
...which will show something like:
InputPeerChannel(channel_id=1066197625, access_hash=-6302373944955169144)
...and then, the account that made the get_input_entity call will always be able to use the printed result, without the need for it to be in cache:
from telethon.tl.types import InputPeerChannel
USERNAME = InputPeerChannel(channel_id=1066197625, access_hash=-6302373944955169144)
# ...
await client.send_message(USERNAME, 'Hi') # works without cache
I am creating notification on server side following way
String target = "oxyn"+notif.getTarget().getOid();
log.info("creating notification for target user {}",target);
NotificationFeed notifications= client.notificationFeed("notification",target);
notifications.addActivity(Activity.builder()
.actor(notif.getTarget().getName())
.verb("receive")
.object(notif.getOid()+"")
.foreignID(notif.getTarget().getName()+":"+notif.getOid())
.extraField("message", notif.getMessage())
.extraField("action", notif.getAction())
.extraField("sender", notif.getSender().getOid())
.extraField("oxyn", notif.getOxyn())
.build()).join();
and on client side, when new notification is sent I am calling
notification1 = client.feed('notification', ("oxyn"+me.oid));
notification1.get({mark_seen:false,mark_read:false})
.then(function(data) {
/* on success */
console.log("new : "+data.unseen);
})
.catch(function(reason) { /* on failure */
alert(reason);
});
problem is, my notifications get grouped and if there is more than one new notification (for example 3) properties unseen/unread count still say 1 instead of 3.
so the only workaround I found is to make sure each notification is unique within unique group so I make verb unique...
.verb("receive"++notif.getOid())
it seems to do the job, notifications do not get grouped, but I feel like this is a hack, so
my question is how do I get a correct number for unseen/unread if my notifications are grouped?
Unseen and Unread counts are based on the amount of groups that are unread/unseen, not on the individual activities. Notification feeds support the most common use-case out of the box: Facebook's notification feed.
What you want in this case is to aggregated activities by their id ({{ id }}). When you do that every group will always have 1 activity and every insert will increase the unseen/unread by one.
This is similar to what you are doing except that you don't have to hack the uniqueness on the verb. To do this you need to configure your notification feed group via Stream's Dashboard and change the aggregation format into {{ id }}.
I have three accounts in my application, this definitely means I have three guards. In my controller when I do this :
dd($apartment->user_id = Auth::id());
I get the users user_id from the users table. I would like to get the user_id from the agents table whose guard I have named agent. I try this :
dd($apartment->user_id = Auth::agent()->id);
and I get this error :
Call to undefined method Illuminate\Auth\SessionGuard::agent().
Does anyone know how I can correctly point to my desired guard?
This is how you get user_id of a specific guard : Auth::guard('name_of_your_guard')->id();
After placing order for a storage in softlayer, I need to get that storage id for a particular order id.The api call i am using, is giving me a list of storage ID. But, if user orders for a storage, only one storage id the user should get right.
So, the api is not properly filtering and not getting a particularly storage id for a particular order id . The rest api, i am using is given below and please tell me what should be the proper filtering ,
"https://[username]:[apikey]#api.softlayer.com/rest/v3/SoftLayer_Account/getIscsiNetworkStorage.json?objectFilter={"networkStorage": {"billingItem": {"nasType": { "operation": "ISCSI"}, "orderItem": {"order": {"id":{"operation":"[orderID]"}}}}}} "
This api is provided by softlayer team
Regards,
Debartha
use this request:
GET https://api.softlayer.com/rest/v3/SoftLayer_Account/getIscsiNetworkStorage?objectMask=mask[billingItem[orderItem[order]]]&objectFilter={"iscsiNetworkStorage": {"billingItem": { "orderItem": {"order": {"id":{"operation":5208963}}}}}}
note: replace 5208963, with your orderID
Basically all the devices must have a billingItem and that billingItem should have orderItem.order.id property, so you can use this filter to get any device using the orderID property, you just to need to make sure that the "iscsiNetworkStorage" value, in the filter, has the same name as the method you are calling (in this case getIscsiNetworkStorage method ), but without the pre-fix "get" and it must start with lower case e.g.
getIscsiNetworkStorage -> iscsiNetworkStorage
Regards
I want to be able to use the AppReceiptId from the result of CurrentApp.GetAppReceiptAsync() and tie it to a username in my backend service, to verify that the user has actually purchased the app.
I know I'm supposed to use CurrentAppSimulator in place of CurrentApp, but CurrentAppSimulator.GetAppReceiptAsync() always returns a different, random value for AppReceiptId. This makes it difficult to test with my service.
Is there a way to make it always return the same value, other than just using a hardcoded one? I'm worried that when I replace CurrentAppSimulator with CurrentApp and submit it to the store, it won't behave the way I expect it to. In the real world, the AppReceiptId won't ever change, right?
The Code I use to get AppReceiptId:
var receiptString = await CurrentAppSimulator.GetAppReceiptAsync();
XmlDocument doc = new XmlDocument();
doc.LoadXml(receiptString);
var ReceiptNode = (from s in doc.ChildNodes
where s.NodeName == "Receipt"
select s).Single();
var AppReceiptNode = (from s in ReceiptNode.ChildNodes
where s.NodeName == "AppReceipt"
select s).Single();
var idNode = (from s in AppReceiptNode.Attributes
where s.NodeName == "Id"
select s).Single();
string id = idNode.NodeValue.ToString();
id will always be some random Guid.
CurrentApp.GetAppReceiptAsync().Id is a unique ID for the actual purchase. Although it does technically represent a unique purchase made by a single Windows ID, it doesn't represent the user themselves and I don't think there's any guarantee on the durability of that ID.
Would you be better suited using the Windows Live SDK to track the actual user identity across devices?
At any rate, to answer your original question, no I don't believe there's any way to make it return the same ID all the time. The only logical place for that functionality would be in the WindowsStoreProxy.xml file, and I don't see anything in the schema that would allow you to specify this information.