I have a template for AWS Cloud Formation. In this template I have set several parameters.
Now, what I would like to do is to leave a parameter field empty but allow the user to select
a specific parameter for example a security group. Now what I would like to do is that if
a user does not select anything (field stays empty) I want it to give an error message saying
field required when you want to proceed and prevent the user from proceeding, as it happens when you do not enter a stack name (see screenshot below).
How do I do this for any parameter in a cloud formation template??? I have searched around but do not find anything
regarding validation of user input …
I know I could set a default for everything, but I do not want to set a default and specifically force
a user to make a selection in this case …
Please see this thread:
https://forums.aws.amazon.com/thread.jspa?threadID=230829
Suggested solution: simply use regular expressions in AllowedPattern.
For e.g. to have a non blank value:
"AllowedPattern" : ".+"
If you want the parameter to be alpha numeric:
"AllowedPattern" : "[a-zA-Z0-9]+"
To match an exact word:
"AllowedPattern" : "^my_matched_word$"
Related
I'm building a chatbot with the Dialogflow-CX V3 console. The bot allows users, among other things, to place an order for a new project. Each project must have a name, so I define a parameter called projectName that the user must provide. I have defined a custom entity type called projectNameText, a regex. I can capture projectName in a form using a typical Q-and-A format:
bot: What is the project name?
user: SalesPitch
But that is rather tedious. I want to allow more freeform user input and capture the projectName using an annotation on an intent training phrase.
bot: What would you like to do?
user: I'd like to make a new project called SalesPitch
When I define a training phrase for an intent like
I'd like to make a new project called Annabel
I can highlight Annabel in the console's intent editor and annotate that as an entity of type #projectNameText as described here. But that instantly creates a parameter with Parameter id projectNameText. And I cannot edit that Parameter id. I can't require that when Dialogflow matches that training phrase and extracts an entity of type projectNameText, it puts it into the parameter projectName. Dialogflow demands that it goes into a parameter called projectNameText. When I run the simulator and type input that matches that training phrase, Dialogflow does indeed correctly extract the entity, but will only create a parameter named projectNameText - I can see the name and value in the simulator.
This answer implies that I can send the matched entity into any parameter I want. That would be sensible. But how do I do it? I can't find any way to edit the parameter name in the Intent editor. All it gives me is this:
and I cannot change the Parameter Id.
I must be missing something really basic. Hints, please?
It is indeed not possible to edit the Parameter Id in the Intent Editor directly.
Instead, in the Intent Editor from the Build tab, accept the default Parameter Id, and Save the modified intent.
Then go to the tabs on the left of the Dialogflow CX console and choose the Manage tab. Choose Intents from the menu and find the intent you have just edited from the menu. Click the intent name to be given a different version of the Intent Editor. Same fields, same data, different functionality. In this different Intent Editor, click the Parameter Id you want to edit. It is now editable. Do not forget to hit Save after editing it.
From start to end, that took thirteen days to find. I posted here and received no answer. I finally subscribed to Google Cloud paid support and raised a support case and was given the answer in a video call with Google India. Perhaps it should be in the Google Documentation.
In Laravel form validation you can do this: file_description.* to validate each item of an array according to a set of rules. The problem is, the system automatically returns "file_description.1 is required" as an error message if the field is required and not filled in.
More on that here: https://ericlbarnes.com/2015/04/04/laravel-array-validation/
Now, I'm not a complex man, I just want the field to say "File Description 1 is required". I am aware you can set messages but a) my input arrays are dynamically generated by jquery (click to add more type scenario) so I'd have to use a loop like in the above example b) I feel like there must be a better way.
Is there a way to either extend the core validation system to simply return a humanized name for the array field as Laravel does with regular fields, or is there an option I missed in the docs that allows for this? I'd rather not get involved with doing some regex type search to fix this.
I am working on a Jmeter LDAP test plan and the test plan has to populate an attribute on the LDAP that is multi-valued.
When I do an LDAP search sampler, I noted that the value I get back is a string, with the values separated by ", ".
But, if I take the same comma-separated string and try to do an LDAP modify or add, using either an LDAP Request or LDAP Extended Request, I get an error.
So I am wondering if there is a way that the Jmeter LDAP Request or LDAP Extended Request can do that?
Thanks,
Jim
EDIT: When I try to use an Extended LDAP Request modification test/add with the attribute of "", I get this error in the Jmeter GUI response:
When attempting to modify entry cn=xxx... to replace the set of values for attribute lastlogindate, value "20181023085627-04, 20181024063205-04" was found to be invalid according to the associated syntax: The provided value "20181023085627-04, 20181024063205-04" is not a valid generalized time value because it contains an invalid character '-' at position 14
The strange part is that even though I have Jmeter to log at debug level, I don't see any detail on the error in the Jmeter.log, but/so I am guessing that that error message is coming from the Jmeter client itself. I noticed that the message says:
to replace the set of values
so it seems like it recognizes that I am trying to modify/replace a multi-value, but it doesn't seem to like the syntax of the replacement values string(s).
Does anyone know what the correct format SHOULD be?
I found the answer to my own question, or at least "A" answer: It appears that I can use an Extended LDAP request, and add the same attribute in that request, multiple times. So for example, if I am populating an attribute named "foo" the Extended LDAP request would have the following:
attribute value opcode
foo 12345 add
foo 12346 add
etc.
I think I also need to do a replace with no value, to empty the attribute, before all the adds.
First Laravel Project.
I want to make an "edit screen" where the "old values" are the predefined default value of the form input field.
I tried this:{{ Form::text('brand', '$product[0]->brand') }}
But I got back
$product[0]->brand
Instead of
Test brand
What I did wrong? What's the good syntax?
Usually, Laravel should reuse the last entry the user used if the form isn't validated as you can read here :
Also, please note that the value will first come from Flash Session Input, only secondly will the value argument be used. This means if your previous request was this form it will automatically display the value the user last entered.
But, if you want, can't you use something like
{{ Form::text('brand', $product[0]->brand) }}
Because you were saying you wanted that specific string by putting ' around your variable.
please use it:
{{Form::text('brand',null,array('class'=>'form-control'))}
I have a section Template'Section_library',in 'Section_library' i have a field 'first-name' who recuperate the value field from another section in my form so i used this expression
xxf:component-context()/root()/form/Section_TWO/mycontrol.
this expression not worked totally,the recuperation is done when i try to write in this field 'first-name'. i want a solution that automatically recuperate the value within any interaction of user.
I find this issue #3008 but i didn't understand it.
As of 2016.2, there is no reliable and supported way for code inside a section template to access information about the form it is used in. This is by design, but there are reasonable use cases that call for a section template being able to access things from the "outer form", and you're correct pointing to RFE 3008. For now I'd recommend you follow this issue.