I am trying to group users of my application together under a 'Company'.
I have done this in other applications by giving the user's an account attribute/property called "company", which equals a string.
Then all data associated with that company is available to that user.
How can I do this with the AWS Amplify framework?
After some research I was able to figure this out.
In case anyone else runs into this problem...
What I was looking for was what AWS Amplify classifies as a 'Custom Resolver'. Essentially the resolver is the API logic for the GraphQL server on AWS' end.
Within your Amplify project structure there should be a folder called 'Resolvers'.
Mine was in
/backend/api/[API_NAME}/resolvers
Inside of this folder you are able to place different types of customer resolver logic for your backend.
Ideally you would place two custom files for every custom endpoint.
The two custom files would be as follows:
Query.listSomeTable.req.vtl
Query.listSomeTable.res.vtl
OR
Mutation.createSomeTable.req.vtl
Mutation.createSomeTable.res.vtl
These two files will override the resolver logic that AWS produces automatically. The files are in Apache's Velocity Engine format; '.vtl'.
You can read more about it here:
https://aws-amplify.github.io/docs/cli-toolchain/graphql#add-a-custom-resolver-that-targets-a-dynamodb-table-from-model
Related
I want to convert my existing app to multi-tenant and don't want to use multiple databases. just read that the given package is allowing that.
https://github.com/spatie/laravel-multitenancy
I have read the single database documentation here: https://spatie.be/docs/laravel-multitenancy/v2/installation/using-a-single-database
But what's next ??
Let's say right now users are storing into users' tables, and by using this package I want to store users tenant-specific.
I don't found the real example anywhere. so better if anyone already implemented Spatie Multi-tenant by using a single Database, please help me here.
Thanks in advance.
Although spatie/laravel-multitenancy supporting single databases, it doesn't come with query scopes (and seems like there are no plans to add them, as you can see here: https://github.com/spatie/laravel-multitenancy/issues/124), so you would need to create them manually.
So, you need to:
add the tenant_id to your tenant-specific tables
add an observer to save the tenant_id when creating a new register in the table
add a global query scope to always filter the data using the current tenant id
You can see something similar in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCiNqboYFVQ
The difference is that you will use the current tenant returned by spatie/laravel-multitenancy instead of the logged user id to get the tenant data.
If you want a package that already brings the query scopes ready to use, you may try Tenancy for Laravel: https://tenancyforlaravel.com/docs/v3/single-database-tenancy
Or, if your application has a very simple multi-tenancy strategy (for example, the tenant is the logged user or his team) you can just create some query scopes without the need to use packages, exactly as the video above teaches, as it is much more simple to identify the tenant by the user_id or team_id, even in terminal commands and queue jobs (but seems that is not your case, as you need the users to belongs to a tenant).
I hope it helps you to select the correct package and strategy for your project.
We have existing database in dynamodb for our application. For one of our new React app, we want to use AWS Amplify and we are trying to use the existing tables.
I created a skeleton project and went to backend AWS AppSync console -> Data Sources and map the existing table to it. And I added that table definition to my schema.graphql in my react app. When I do an amplify push, I see it creating a new table in dynamodb, rather than pointing to the existing db.
I also tried to map one of the tables in AppSync Console, and did amplify pull from local project, assuming that will add the definition of the table in my local schema.graphql but that did not happen either. It did not pull down the details of the newly mapped data source from backend app sync console.
My existing db has lot of data and is shared with other applications as well. I do not want to create a new table.
Can you pls suggest how to accomplish this?
Also we have existing lamdba functions which we would want to leverage into this new Amplify project as well. Could you pls suggest pointers for this as well.
Any help is much appreciated!
Line 22 in the file below shows how the table name is constructed when the graphql.schema transformer runs; that is - the name is derived from the GraphQLAPI ID and this seems to be a one way process.
TableName: joinWithEnv('-', [SyncResourceIDs.syncTableName, Fn.GetAtt(ResourceConstants.RESOURCES.GraphQLAPILogicalID, 'ApiId')]),
https://github.com/aws-amplify/amplify-cli/blob/e1e07b245db0963c4655e646c53e7615febe2930/packages/graphql-transformer-core/src/util/syncUtils.ts
The only option then would be to try and patch the resulting CFN script.
You can use amplify import storage to import existing DynamoDB tables or S3 buckets.
more here: https://docs.amplify.aws/cli/storage/import/
Also look at
Re-use existing AppSync GraphQL API - it might help with reusing lambda functions, if they are wrapped by an API.
I'm new to Laravel and I am handed an existing application that is composed of two parts:
1 - An admin backend built on Laravel and uses Vueify
2 - The frontend website built on next.js and uses react components
The admin part communicates with Laravel using the "web routes" but also uses the "api routes" as well since the vue components make AJAX requests using those "api routes".
I am now tasked with "connecting" the frontend part to the laravel app. The frontend part will be using AJAX as well to communicate with laravel but I was told I should not use the same "api route" that is used by the admin backend because that has a lot more privileges that should not be accessible by the frontend. Basically it's a security risk and that I should somehow separate the two.
I'm not actually sure which term to use.. I initially thought it was called "channel" but I see that channel is one of the 4 "ways" of connecting to laravel (the other 3 being web, api and console). So I think routes is the term to use and forgive me for the double-quotes.
I have made a simple diagram to show the structure I mean. What I need to know is is there a way to create a second api route that would be used exclusively by the frontend and would include only a limited set of priviledges. I imagine something like /frontapi/ or /webapi/ as opposed to /api/ which is used now by the backend.
Thanks a lot for your help and please correct me if I am using wrong terminology.
EDIT
Thank you all for answering the part regarding separating the route prefix and the api route files.
One part of the question that I realized late that I hadn't made clear was the importance of separating the API Keys for both APIs since I think that is the main security issue and what would really make then two individual API "Channels or ways". I think that is one reason why I was confusing about the terminology because "way" sounded to me more separate that just a "route". I've also edited the question to reflect that. Thank you again for taking the time to help.
You can decompose routes in as many files as you want, you can also give each file its own prefix (like how api.php routes start with /api)
The modification need to be done in App\Providers\RouteServiceProvider
//in map() add $this->mapApiTwoRoutes()
public function map()
{
$this->mapApiRoutes();
$this->mapApiTwoRoutes();//<---this one
$this->mapWebRoutes();
}
//now add the method mapApiTwoRoutes
protected function mapApiTwoRoutes()
{
Route::prefix('api2')//<-- prefix in the url
->middleware('api')//<-- api middleware (throttle and such check App\Http\Kernal.php)
->namespace('App\Http\Controllers') //<-- you can modify the namespace of the controllers
->group(base_path('routes/apiTwo.php'));//<-- file containing the routes
}
And that's it.
You need to define a new route file, firstly add a new entry $this->mapApi2Routes(); in the map() function in app\Providers\RouteServiceProvider.
Then add a new function in that file, basically copying the mapApiRoutes() function, call it mapApi2Routes(). You can use different middleware etc. for the new file.
The last step would be adding a new file api2.php in the routes folder.
I've recently updated my serverless project, and I've found that many things have changed in the last few updates.
https://serverless.com/
I don't fully understand whats the correct way to have multiple lambda functions and api gateway endpoints related to the same project. With the old serverless I have every lambda and endpoint as a completely seperate function, this worked pretty well for me.
I can't seem to do this anymore, if I try my second lambda function overrides my first, presumably because my "service name" for both is the same. My service name is the same because I want both rest endpoints in the same API in API Gateway. Since serverless creates the API name based on the service name.
So then I tried to add both functions to the same "Service". this worked for the most part, except that now I need to include my custom role statement for all my functions into the same role (because this one role is now being linked to all my functions). Effectively giving more permissions to each individual function than it should have. The other issue is that all my handler files for the different functions are being put into each functions deployment bundle.
So basically, I'm not sure what is the correct approach to have multiple functions that relate to the same project but are separate in functionality. It used to make sense, now doesn't.
If anybody can give me some pointers please
Thanks
I understand your frustration. I had the same feeling until I looked deeper into the new version and formed a better understanding. One thing to note though, is the new version is not completely finished yet. So if something is completely missing, you can file an issue and have it prioritized before 1.0 is out.
You are supposed to define multiple functions under the same service under the functions: section of serverless.yml. To package these functions individually (exclude code for other functions) you will have to set individually: true under package: section. You can then use include and exclude options at the root level and at the function level as well. There's an upcoming change that will let you use glob syntax in your include and exclude options (example **/*-fn.js). You can find more about packaging here https://www.serverless.com/framework/docs/providers/aws/guide/deploying.
Not sure how to use different roles for different functions under the same service.. How did you do it with 0.5?
I was trying to find a solution for individual iam roles per function as well. I couldn't find a way to do it, but while I was looking through the documentation I found the line: "Support for separate IAM Roles per function is coming soon." on this page, so at least we know they are working on it.
The "IAM Roles Per Function" plugin for Serverless allows you to do exactly what it says on the tin: specify roles for each function. You can still use the provider-level roles as well:
By default, function level iamRoleStatements override the provider level definition. It is also possible to inherit the provider level definition by specifying the option iamRoleStatementsInherit: true
EDIT: You can also apply a predefined AWS role at both the provider and function level.
I would like to have a workflow create a task, then email the assigned user that they have a new task and include a link to the newly created task in the body of the email. I have client side code that will correctly create the edit URL, using the entities GUID and stores it in a custom attribute. However, when the task is created from within a workflow, the client script isn't run.
So, I think a plug-in should work, but I can't figure out how to determine the URL of the CRM installation. I'm authoring this in a test environment and definitely don't want to have to change things when I move to production. I'm sure I could use a config file, but seems like the plug-in should be able to figure this out at runtime.
Anyone have any ideas how to access the URL of the crm service from within a plug-in? Any other ideas?
There is no simple way to do this. However, there is one.
The MSCRM_Config is the deployment database that handle physical deployment properties, like the URL from which users are accessing the CRM deployment. The url that you might want is the one stored in "ADWebApplicationRootDomain", in the MSCRM_CONFIG.dbo.DeploymentProperties table. You may need some permission to access this database.
Note that this doesn't work in a deployment that is an Internet Facing Deployment.
Another way could be to query the discovery service to retrieve the same information (in the case that you are on the Online edition of MSCRM4).
What do you mean by "change things"?
If you create a custom workflow assembly, you can give it a server url input. Once you register it with CRM, you can simply type in the server url when you configure the workflow. You'll have to update the url for any workflows that use the custom workflow assembly once you move to production, but you'll only have to do that once.
My apologies if this is what you meant you wanted to avoid.
Edit: Sounds like you may be able to use the CustomConfiguration attribute when you register the plugin. Here's some more info.
http://blogs.msdn.com/crm/archive/2008/10/24/storing-configuration-data-for-microsoft-dynamics-crm-plug-ins.aspx
String Url = ((string)(Registry.LocalMachine.OpenSubKey(
"Software\\Microsoft\\MSCRM").GetValue("ServerUrl"))
).Replace("MSCRMServices", "");