My pipedrive deals are sorted in different pipeline that I can find easily with this kind of request :
api.pipedrive.com/v1/pipelines/ID_PIPELINE?api_token=######
So what I was doing until now is to send data to
api.pipedrive.com/v1/organizations
api.pipedrive.com/v1/persons
api.pipedrive.com/v1/deals
api.pipedrive.com/v1/notes
And I send it to the user info#, which is link to a form type "contact-us"
What happen is that it goes by default to the primary pipeline, associated to info#
We created a second pipeline, also associated to info# and when I am sending organizations / persons etc, I am asked if it's possible to send it directly into the new pipeline instead of the "default one".
Like api.pipedrive.com/v1/pipelines/ID_PIPELINE/organizations?api_token=######
etc
At the moment I haven't find a clue about it, I wanted confirmation.
I get it now. You can't add a deal straight to a Pipeline. But you can do so in Stage.
So what I did was get the specific Pipeline and then get the first Stage in its list and then use that Stage ID to add the Deal in.
PS. I'm going to improve this answer later. But basically that's the gist of how to achieve what you want to do.
Related
I'm working on a Power Automate flow where the flow is supposed to connect to Planner, get the tasks which are due tomorrow and send a message to an MS Teams Channel.
I got the entire flow working except of one thing - getting the names of the person(s) whom the task is assigned.
Here's my current flow:
Getting the list of Tasks from Planner,
Filter those which have a Due Date set,
Filter the ones which have the Due Date tomorrow,
Get the Name of the Task Creator using Get User Profile,
Send the data into an MS Teams Channel.
This all works perfectly fine. However I also need to get the names of the Assigned users. I understand that they come as an array. And when I try to add it to the same Get User Profile it's getting wrapped into an unnecessary "Apply to Each" which breaks everything.
Does anyone have a clue how this can be solved? Basically I need only 1 Assignee as we are not going to assign the same task to more than 1 person.
Any help would be much appreciated!
In order to avoid the loop (which is also a valid approach, long story) then you can use an expression to get the first (in case there are multiple) assigned user.
This is an example where you don't need to loop ...
... you can see I've initialised a (string) variable at the top which will hold the user ID GUID.
... then further down in the Set Assigned To operation, this is the expression I use ...
item()?['_assignments'][0]['userid']
That gets the first user and then the associated userid property. You can then pass that into the Get user profile (V2) task ...
Obviously, you need to adapt that to your flow but I hope that makes sense.
I am trying to push a event towards GA3, mimicking an event done by a browser towards GA. From this Event I want to fill Custom Dimensions(visibile in the user explorer and relate them to a GA ID which has visited the website earlier). Could this be done without influencing website data too much? I want to enrich someone's data from an external source.
So far I cant seem to find the minimum fields which has to be in the event call for this to work. Ive got these so far:
v=1&
_v=j96d&
a=1620641575&
t=event&
_s=1&
sd=24-bit&
sr=2560x1440&
vp=510x1287&
je=0&_u=QACAAEAB~&
jid=&
gjid=&
_u=QACAAEAB~&
cid=GAID&
tid=UA-x&
_gid=GAID&
gtm=gtm&
z=355736517&
uip=1.2.3.4&
ea=x&
el=x&
ec=x&
ni=1&
cd1=GAID&
cd2=Companyx&
dl=https%3A%2F%2Fexample.nl%2F&
ul=nl-nl&
de=UTF-8&
dt=example&
cd3=CEO
So far the Custom dimension fields dont get overwritten with new values. Who knows which is missing or can share a list of neccesary fields and example values?
Ok, a few things:
CD value will be overwritten only if in GA this CD's scope is set to the user-level. Make sure it is.
You need to know the client id of the user. You can confirm that you're having the right CID by using the user explorer in GA interface unless you track it in a CD. It allows filtering by client id.
You want to make this hit non-interactional, otherwise you're inflating the session number since G will generate sessions for normal hits. non-interactional hit would have ni=1 among the params.
Wait. Scope calculations don't happen immediately in real-time. They happen later on. Give it two days and then check the results and re-conduct your experiment.
Use a throwaway/test/lower GA property to experiment. You don't want to affect the production data while not knowing exactly what you do.
There. A good use case for such an activity would be something like updating a life time value of existing users and wanting to enrich the data with it without waiting for all of them to come in. That's useful for targeting, attribution and more.
Thank you.
This is the case. all CD's are user Scoped.
This is the case, we are collecting them.
ni=1 is within the parameters of each event call.
There are so many parameters, which parameters are neccesary?
we are using a test property for this.
We also got he Bot filtering checked out:
Bot filtering
It's hard to test when the User Explorer has a delay of 2 days and we are still not sure which parameters to use and which not. Who could help on the parameter part? My only goal is to update de CD's on the person. Who knows which parameters need to be part of the event call?
I am implementing an example of spring-boot and axon. I have two events
(deposit and withdraw account balance). I want to know is there any way to get the state of the Account Aggregate by a given date ?
I want to get not just the final state, but to replay events in a range of dates.
I think I can help with this.
In the context of Axon Framework, you can start a replay of events by telling a given TrackingEventProcessor to 'reset' it's Tokens. By the way, the current description on this in the Reference Guide can be found here.
These TrackingTokens are the objects which know how far a given TrackingEventProcessor is in terms of handling events from the Event Stream. Thus resetting/adjusting these TrackingTokens is what will issue a Replay of events.
Knowing all these, the second step is to look at the methods the TrackingEventProcessor provides to 'reset tokens', which is threefold:
TrackingEventProcessor#resetTokens()
TrackingEventProcessor#resetTokens(Function<StreamableMessageSource, TrackingToken>)
TrackingEventProcessor#resetTokens(TrackingToken)
Option one will reset your tokens to the beginning of the event stream, which will thus replay everything.
Option two and three however give you the opportunity to provide a TrackingToken.
Thus, you could provide a TrackingToken starting from several points on the Event Stream. So, how do you go about to creating such a TrackingToken at a specific point in time? To that end, you should take a look at the StreamableMessageSource interface, which has the following operations:
StreamableMessageSource#createTailToken()
StreamableMessageSource#createHeadToken()
StreamableMessageSource#createTokenAt(Instant)
StreamableMessageSource#createTokenSince(Duration)
Option 1 is what's used to create a token at the start of the stream, whilst 2 will create a token at the head of the stream.
Option 3 and 4 will however allow you to create a token at a specific point in time, thus allowing you to replay all the events since the defined instance up to now.
There is one caveat in this scenario however. You're asking to replay an Aggregate. From Axon's perspective by default the Aggregate is the Command Model in a CQRS set up, thus dealing with Commands going in to your system. In the majority of the applications, you want Commands (e.g. the requests to change something) to occur on the current state of the application. As such, the Repository provided to retrieve an Aggregate does not allow specifying a point in time.
The above described solution in regards to replaying is thus solely tied to Query Model creation, as the TrackingEventProcessor is part of the Event Handling side in your application most often used to create views. This idea also ties in with your questions, that you want to know the "state of the Account Aggregate" at a given point in time. That's not a command, but a query, as you have 'a request for data' instead of 'the request to change state'.
Hope this helps you out #Safe!
So, I'm working on a CQRS/ES project in which we are having some doubts about how to handle trivial problems that would be easy to handle in other architectures
My scenario is the following:
I have a customer CRUD REST API and each customer has unique document(number), so when I'm registering a new customer I have to verify if there is another customer with that document to avoid duplicity, but when it comes to a CQRS/ES architecture where we have eventual consistency, I found out that this kind of validations can be very hard to address.
It is important to notice that my problem is not across microservices, but between the command application and the query application of the same microservice.
Also we are using eventstore.
My current solution:
So what I do today is, in my command application, before saving the CustomerCreated event, I ask the query application (using PostgreSQL) if there is a customer with that document, and if not, I allow the event to go on. But that doesn't guarantee 100%, right? Because my query can be desynchronized, so I cannot trust it 100%. That's when my second validation kicks in, when my query application is processing the events and saving them to my PostgreSQL, I check again if there is a customer with that document and if there is, I reject that event and emit a compensating event to undo/cancel/inactivate the customer with the duplicated document, therefore finishing that customer stream on eventstore.
Altough this works, there are 2 things that bother me here, the first thing is my command application relying on the query application, so if my query application is down, my command is affected (today I just return false on my validation if query is down but still...) and second thing is, should a query/read model really be able to emit events? And if so, what is the correct way of doing it? Should the command have some kind of API for that? Or should the query emit the event directly to eventstore using some common shared library? And if I have more than one view/read? Which one should I choose to handle this?
Really hope someone could shine a light into these questions and help me this these matters.
For reference, you may want to be reviewing what Greg Young has written about Set Validation.
I ask the query application (using PostgreSQL) if there is a customer with that document, and if not, I allow the event to go on. But that doesn't guarantee 100%, right?
That's exactly right - your read model is stale copy, and may not have all of the information collected by the write model.
That's when my second validation kicks in, when my query application is processing the events and saving them to my PostgreSQL, I check again if there is a customer with that document and if there is, I reject that event and emit a compensating event to undo/cancel/inactivate the customer with the duplicated document, therefore finishing that customer stream on eventstore.
This spelling doesn't quite match the usual designs. The more common implementation is that, if we detect a problem when reading data, we send a command message to the write model, telling it to straighten things out.
This is commonly referred to as a process manager, but you can think of it as the automation of a human supervisor of the system. Conceptually, a process manager is an event sourced collection of messages to be sent to the command model.
You might also want to consider whether you are modeling your domain correctly. If documents are supposed to be unique, then maybe the command model should be using the document number as a key in the book of record, rather than using the customer. Or perhaps the document id should be a function of the customer data, rather than being an arbitrary input.
as far as I know, eventstore doesn't have transactions across different streams
Right - one of the things you really need to be thinking about in general is where your stream boundaries lie. If set validation has significant business value, then you really need to be thinking about getting the entire set into a single stream (or by finding a way to constrain uniqueness without using a set).
How should I send a command message to the write model? via API? via a message broker like Kafka?
That's plumbing; it doesn't really matter how you do it, so long as you are sure that the command runs within its own transaction/unit of work.
So what I do today is, in my command application, before saving the CustomerCreated event, I ask the query application (using PostgreSQL) if there is a customer with that document, and if not, I allow the event to go on. But that doesn't guarantee 100%, right? Because my query can be desynchronized, so I cannot trust it 100%.
No, you cannot safely rely on the query side, which is eventually consistent, to prevent the system to step into an invalid state.
You have two options:
You permit the system to enter in a temporary, pending state and then, eventually, you will bring it into a valid permanent state; for this you could allow the command to pass, yield CustomerRegistered event and using a Saga/Process manager you verify against a uniquely-indexed-by-document-collection and issue a compensating command (not event!), i.e. UnregisterCustomer.
Instead of sending a command, you create&start a Saga/Process that preallocates the document in a uniquely-indexed-by-document-collection and if successfully then send the RegisterCustomer command. You can model the Saga as an entity.
So, in both solution you use a Saga/Process manager. In order for the system to be resilient you should make sure that RegisterCustomer command is idempotent (so you can resend it if the Saga fails/is restarted)
You've butted up against a fairly common problem. I think the other answer by VoicOfUnreason is worth reading. I just wanted to make you aware of a few more options.
A simple approach I have used in the past is to create a lookup table. Your command tries to register the key in a unique constraint table. If it can reserve the key the command can go ahead.
Depending on the nature of the data and the domain you could let this 'problem' occur and raise additional events to mark it. If it is something that's important to the business/the way the application works then you can deal with it either manually or at the time via compensating commands. if the latter then it would make sense to use a process manager.
In some (rare) cases where speed/capacity is less of an issue then you could consider old-fashioned locking and transactions. Admittedly these are much better suited to CRUD style implementations but they can be used in CQRS/ES.
I have more detail on this in my blog post: How to Handle Set Based Consistency Validation in CQRS
I hope you find it helpful.
I want to look at the effect of having performed a specific action sequence at any (tracked) time in the past on user retention and engagement.
The action sequence is that of performing an optional New User Flow.
This is signalled to Google Analytics via sending it appropriate events. That works fine. The events show up in reports as expected.
My problem is what happens to results when I used these events to create segments. I have tried two different ways of creating a segment based on this in Advanced Segmentations, via Conditions (defining the segment via the end event, filtered over users not sessions), and via Sequences (defining start and end events, again filtered over users not sessions).
What I get when I look at various retention/loyalty reports, using either of these segments, is ever so very clearly a result which is doing this segmentation within session, not across uses sessions. So for NUF completers , I am seeing all my loyalty/recency on Session 1, in which people are most likely to do the NUF, if they ever do it at all. This is not what I want. (Mind you it is something that could be really useful in other context, with another event! But not for the new user flow.)
What are my options for getting what I want? I see two possible ways forward:
Using custom dimensions, assigning a custom dimension value in the code when the New User Flow is completed. However I do not know if this will solve the cross-session persistence problem.
Injecting a UserID, which we do not currently do, and (somehow!) using the reports available when you inject a UserID to do this.
Are either of these paths plausible? Is there a better way forward? Is it silly to even try to do this in Google Analytics? I'm way more familiar with App Tracking solutions (e.g. Flurry, Mixpanel, DeltaDNA) which do this as a matter of course, than with Google Analytics, and the fact this is at the very least awkward in Google Analytics is coming a bit of a surprise.
thanks,
Heather