I am wondering what the status actually means in the API call get_survey_details? I was thinking that this was an active / inactive / error type status but I don't think that is the case anymore. I have closed a collector on the survey so that no response's would be gathered and I am still getting status:0. We are looking for a way of knowing from our own internal app that if a survey is active or inactive and I am not sure how to do this from the SM API. Anyone out there doing something similar or know how to accomplish this?
Thanks in advance!
"status":0 is the error code status, i.e. no error occurred in calling the API.
Surveys can't be open or closed - just collectors can. If you call get_collector_list it has a field you can request called "open", which will return a boolean on whether a collector is open or not. You can check if any responses are being collected by requesting the list - if there are no collectors with "open":True then the survey is effectively closed.
Related
I feel I must be doing something wrong in the API. I am following the weather example with a missing location. The story works fine.
However when I use the API over http using postman for testing purposes I cannot get it to raise the action after sending back the location from the user, It always returns a stop message. I think I must be not sending the correct context across or similar.
My understanding is as follows:
send across message 'I want to know the weather'
raises action from wit: 'Weather' (works correctly)
Respond with 'missingLocation'
wit replies with msg 'Which location do you want to know the weather for?' (works correctly)
I respond with 'Paris' in the message (no context all with same session)
wit replies with finding the entity 'Paris' but a 'stop' and no action. Here I would expect to get an action request again with everything I need to know this time. This is what happens when I use the story and test using the bot messenger.
Any ideas from anyone? I expect I need to respond with something more than just 'Paris' in the message
Thanks.
Note: the question was asked by "scruffjinks" on github before with no answer
https://github.com/wit-ai/wit/issues/301
Trying to integrate ApplePayJS into my website and getting this annoying message::
InvalidAccessError Code 15
"The object does not support the operation or argument"
Everything seems to have been going well and now nothing works.
If you get this error, in my experience Safari is now dead to ApplePayJS and you must start by force quitting and reopening it again.
Turns out the reason for me what that the ApplePay API completely craps out if you pass a string instead of an object into the completeMerchantValidation.
If what you return from your server is not JSON object, but a string instead then you can do this:
session.completeMerchantValidation(JSON.parse(merchantSession));
Or better still - fix your server to return a JSON object instead of a string.
Update 4 years later:
I just saw this again today for a real customer as opposed to during my own testing. In this instance the order had succeeded and the customer thought it had failed so attempted to go through the process again.
Oddly it was on this call with the same error "The object does not support the operation or argument."
applePayTokenize.session.completePayment(ApplePaySession.STATUS_SUCCESS);
Since the payment succeeded I've changed my logic to just ignore the exception (for STATUS_SUCCESS only) and proceed to the final page. I don't even know if the ApplePay sheet was still open but even if it was at least when it cancels it will be on the receipt page.
I have also had this issue but with a different reason
Your domain name in the session needs to equal the domain name of your browser. you set the domain name in the backend during in the initiativeContext
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/apple_pay_on_the_web/apple_pay_js_api/requesting_an_apple_pay_payment_session
Suppose I ask a question to an criminal register: http://server/demographics/party/{partyId} and that person is not known on that system.
Is that an error? Isn't it a good thing?
When returning 404, it is an error code, Restlet has implemented it as a specific URL cannot be resolved to a route to a server-resource (a handling class), an erroneous situation.
In my opinion, if a system understands a call, and is able to process it without errors, it should return 200 (HTTP-ok), and it should return the information: "We don't know this person".
What is the best thing to do?
There's nothing wrong in returning a 404 status code. It simply means "you asked for a resource, and it doesn't exist". If it did return 200, it would have to somehow return an additional status code telling you that everything went fine, but the resource couldn't be found. That's unnecessary, because 404 already means exactly that.
A status 500 is normally returned to mean "something went wrong, I can't tell you if the resource exists or not". Now if you returned a 404 to mean that, this would be a mistake.
Whether it's a good thing or not is not doesn't have anything to do with HTTP or REST. And BTW, if the register was a file containing the survivors of a disaster, you would probably find it bad to not find the person you looked for, unless maybe if the person is your mother in law, unless you actually love your mother in law. (this is meant as a joke, for those who don't find it obvious).
A web service could be implemented in a way that produces either kind of response.
If it is being implemented in a way that is truer to HTTP/Rest, then '404 not found' would be the appropriate response for not finding something. This is what the 404 status is for.
It may help to think of your request as saying 'I assume this record exists, and I want to see it', and the 404 response as saying 'You are in error that record does not exist'.
If this URL is going to be used by code (rather than be displayed in a browser), then if you don't make a distinction in the response status then you will have to add extra information to the response body to make the difference obvious.
If this URL is going to be displayed to a user in a browser, then the server is still able to display content in the response body for a 404.
Please read: http://archive.oreilly.com/pub/post/restful_error_handling.html#__federated=1
Quoting:
Conclusion:
Human Readable Error Messages: Part of the major appeal of REST based web services is that you can open any browser, type in the right URL, and see an immediate response -- no special tools needed. However, HTTP error codes do not always provide enough information. For example, if we take option 1 above, and request and invalid book ID, we get back a 404 Error Code. From the developer perspective, have we actually typed in the wrong host name, or an invalid book ID? It's not immediately clear. In Option 3 (DAS), we get back a blank page with no information. To view the actual error code, you need to run a network sniffer, or point your browser through a proxy. For all these reasons, I think Option 4 has a lot to offer. It significantly lowers the barrier for new developers, and enables all information related to a web service to be directly viewable within a web browser.
Application Specific Errors: Option 1 has the disadvantage of not being directly viewable within a browser. It also has the additional disadvantage of mapping all HTTP error codes to application specific error codes. HTTP status codes are specific to document retrieval and posting, and these may not map directly to your application domain. For example, one of the DAS error codes relates to invalid genomic coordinates (sequence coordinate is out of bounds/invalid). What HTTP error code would we map to in this case?
Machine Readable Error Codes: As a third criteria, error codes should be easily readable by other applications. For example, the XooMLe application returns back only human readable error messages, e.g. "Invalid Google API key supplied". An application parsing a XooMLe response would have to search for this specific error message, and this can be notoriously brittle -- for example, the XooMLe server might simply change the message to "Invalid Key Supplied". Error codes, such as those provided by DAS are important for programmatic control, and easy creation of exceptions. For example, if XooMLe returned a 1001 error code, a client application could do a quick lookup and immediately throw an InvalidKeyException.
Based on these three criteria, here's my vote for best error handling option:
Use HTTP Status Codes for problems specifically related to HTTP, and not specifically related to your web service.
When an error occurs, always return an XML document detailing the error.
Make sure the XML error document contains both an error code, and a human readable error message. For example:
1001
Invalid Google API key supplied
By following these three simple practices, you can make it significantly easier for others to interface with your service, and react when things go wrong. New developers can easily see valid and invalid requests via a simple web browser, and programs can easily (and more robustly) extract error codes and act appropriately.
The Amazon.com web services API follows the approach of returned XML document can specify an ErrorMsg element.
XooMLe also follows this approach. (XooMLe provides a RESTful API wrapper to the existing SOAP based Google API).
Another approach is by DAS ( Distributed Annotation System) which always returns 200 if there was no HTTP-error and has error information in the HTTP-header, which is less favorable, because it is not human readable, as a browser does not display the HTTP-header.
I am trying to develop a standard when I code applications.
I was curious as to what other developers did when it comes to sql errors or general program errors. Do you output the error to the screen, write to a log file, or something else?
It really depends on the severity of the error.
Is it a show stopper?
Can the software automatically retry and get away with no message?
Can it be ignored?
You can log every exception, or just certain ones, or none. I have a custom Exception class which logs every exception created (of that type).
I have an unhandled exception handler which emails me when there is one.
I'd only send a message to the user when it will change the way the application works from the user's point of view.
Your question is a bit subjective and you would get opinion-based answers if the entire community bothered to answer.
If the error is relevant and important to the user (e.g.: invalid username/password) display it to the user using a message box.
If the error is relevant to the developer, or can be used in the debugging process, use a log or a console output.
The trick is to identify which and how the errors should be displayed to the user. You don't want to bombard the user with exceptions and complicated errors on which the user has no idea on how to act upon.
Generally, in software design, which of the options below is preferred when there is a problem or error with a resource such as a database or file?
Show an error message
Do not show an error message and act as though the resource was empty (eg. do not populate a GUI component)]
For example, should the user see an empty DataGrid following which they complain, or should there be an error message? Which is better?
I don't see this as an either/or. Also, we need to consider all "users" of the system.
First consider the UI. Let's consider a contrived general case: you are populating a UI by calling a service which in turn uses a couple of of databases (for example a "current data" and an "historic data") database.
There are at least these possibilities:
It all works, data is retrieved
It all works but as it happens there's no data for this particular query
Can't reach the service
Service is invoked, but one database is down
Service is invoked, but both databases are down
Then also consider your application's semantics. Can your applciation procede in a "degraded" mode if all the data cannot be retrieved? For example, we can't query the history but that doesn't stop us creating a new item.,
Now also consider the roles here. There's the person using the UI, there's also support and maintenance people who need to know about and fix problems.
My general rules:
First Failure Data capture: Whichever component first detects an error should log it in some detail. So, service up, database down the service should log the problem. Service down, the UI should log the problem. This log should be a technical record targeting the support roles.
UIs should be tolerant: if at all possible run in a degraded mode. So if the service is down but (for example) local working is possible put up an empty screen and continue. BUT ...
Always indicate a problem: The "no data for this query" and "databases unavailable" cases may both result in an empty screen. The user needs to know the status of the display, is it showing complete information, partial information (eg. because one DB is down) or is no information available (eg. service or both dbs down). So have a "Status" field somewhere on the screen. Giving messages such as
Historica Data not currently available
or
There are problems retrieveing
information, if these persist please
contact support ...
There are some pitfalls to each of the options
Showing error message
This is specially helpful when your application is in testing stage or public testing. Also when clients meets an error, he or she can copy down the details and forward to you.
However sometimes this error message gets very ugly (call stacks and so on - remember ASP.NET?) and it becomes so large that it becomes difficult for clients to copy down the details.
Do not show error message and act as though nothing happened =)
This is useful when you don't want error messages to cog up your software UI design. But be reminded that it becomes difficult and further error prone when clients can't differentiate between an actual error, or really nothing on the GUI. The error stays there and nothing gets fixed.
My stand
Get the best of both worlds. In fact most modern applications how have a very good error handling process. I'll take the example of Mozilla Firefox 3.
A deadly error occurred and Firefox crashes
Error is captured and stored into a file as a form of error report
Error Reporting Application pops up apologizing to the user
Ask the user if the user want to send the error report to the software dev team
Then ask the user if want to restart the application
Or if the error is a warning or of lesser severity:
Show a simple error code and tell the user that there's the error with that action. Something like: "Error 123 at RequestSalary() Line 2"
The practice I usualy use is:
If the error didn't happen due to user error, then you should try to handle the error quietly.
If the error occurred because of some external problem (such as no internet connection) then you should alert the user.
IMO you should show a message (albeit a user friendly one and not something like "java.io.IOException: Connection timed out".) You could have a message box telling the user that an error occured while getting the data and provide helpful tips like: Trying after some time, check network cable, etc.
Also allow user to report that error to you (error reporting build into the app) that will send you the actual error and stack trace.