In my application I have an administrator who can create Tournament objects. When the object is created the service also creates a user (based on the tournament director's info which was entered at creation). The username for the user is the director's e-mail, the password is randomly generated and then mailed to the director.
When the director logs on with his e-mail address and password, I need to be able to link him to his own tournament, in order to only allow him to edit his own tournament's details. I have tried to find a way to store the TournamentId in the default ASP Net Users database, but was unsuccessful.
I had a look at this SO question which would certainly help me, but I can't figure out how it would apply to my problem. When the user logs on, I can't put the TournamentId in the userdata seeing as I don't know it.
Should I then do a lookup in the Tournament table to see which ID corresponds to the email address entered at login and store that in the userData? It seems quite unelegant this way.
I guess you should have a CreatedBy column in your Tournament table where you store the ID of the user who created the tournament. Then when the user logged in, get his id ( may be from session ,if you store it there), Do a select query where CreatedBy=loggedInUserId .That should do the trick.
Related
In the Preventing duplicate Items article, it mentions that you can use a specific combination of fields to determine if there are duplicate items or not. And specifically OAuth institutions, it says the combination of fields are: customer's user ID and institution_id. I'm confused what the customer's user ID is. I'm not familiar with this identifier. Can somebody explain?
The customer's user ID would be a value in your own application's business logic, not part of the Plaid API. In most Plaid use cases, alongside an Item, you would typically store some kind of user id that associates it with a specific user in your system. The logic here is saying that if the same end user in your system has multiple Items with the same institution, they are probably duplicate Items.
I wanna code a telegram bot, so when I gonna receive messages from a user I should know about last message he/she sent to me and in which step does he/she located. So I should store sessions of the user (I understood this when I searched) but I don't know what exactly should I do?
I know I need a table in a db that stores UserId, ChatId but I don't know these:
How to make a root for steps and store them in db (I mean how do I understand where the user is located now)
What are other columns that I need to store as a session?
How many messages should I store in the database? And do I need one row for each message?
If you just have to store session in your database you don't need to store messages. Maybe you could want to store also messages but it's not necessarily related.
Let's assume you have a "preferences" menu in your bot where the user can write his input. You ask for the name, age, gender etc.
How do your know when the user writes the input of it's about the name or the gender etc?
You save sessions in your db. When the bot receives the message you check in what session the user is in to run the right function.
An easy solution could be a sql database.
The primary key column is the telegram user ID ( you additionally can add a chat id column if it's intended to work both in private and group chats) and a "session" column TEXT where you log user steps. The session column can be NULL by default. If the bot expects the gender (because the user issued /gender command) you can update the column "session" with the word "gender" so when the message arrives you know how to handle it checking the gender column of that user id and as soon as you runned the right function, you update to NULL again the column "session".
you can create a db with these columns.
UserID, ChatID, State, Name, Age, Gender ...
on each incoming update you will check if user exists on you db then check the user's State and respond appropriately and update the state at the end.
Is there any way how to uniquely identify user who caused an event? I want to extract all events from Appsactivity service, which belongs to specific user.
The problem is, that service.activities().list() returns also activities of other users of shared file, even if this request has set userId which indicates the user to return activity for. It returns all visible activities to given user and therefore it contains activities of other users.
I tried to filter list, but it seems to be impossible - events contains simple User object which does not have userId or userEmail.
One way is to compare user's photo url which is avalaible in appactivity User object. Note, that this can be done only if url is not null, otherwise it won't uniquely identify user.
I am trying to get historical data for all of our Yammer posts. We are very active, and like to look back sometimes. The data is loaded into a data warehouse.
For current messages, I get a list of users and then match messages against the user list. I can then use the email address as a unique identifier for the user (our users likes to change their names on the network to goofy names, or to someone else's name) to match it up with the rest of the user information we have for them.
The problem is that I when I start going back in time with the messages, the only information I get about a user is the ID and the username for users that are suspended or deleted. I can't seem to establish a way to match the username against a person. Some of the usernames contain periods (firstname.lastname), and other don't.
Is there any way to get the email address of the suspended/deleted user?
I have a tricky issue here with a registration of both a user and his/her pet. Both the user and the pet are treated as separate entities and both require separate registration forms. However, the user's pet has to be linked to the user via a foreign key in the database. The process is basically that when a new user joins the site, firstly they register their pet, then they register themselves. The reason for this order is to check their pet's eligibility for the site (there are some criteria to be met) first, instead of getting the user to sign up only to then find out their pet is ineligible. It is this ordering of the form submissions which is causing me a bit of a headache, as follows...
The site is being developed with an MVC framework, and the User registration process is managed via a method in a User_form controller, while the pet registration process is managed via a method in the Pet_form controller.
The pet registration form happens first, and the pet data can be saved without the owner_id at this stage, with the user id possibly being added (e.g by retrieving pet's id from session) following user registration. However, doing it this way could potentially result in redundant data, where pet records would be created in the database, but if the user doesn't actually register themselves too, then the pets will be ownerless records in the DB.
Other option is to serialize the new pet's data at the pet registration stage, don't save it to the DB until the user fills out their registration form. Once the user is created, i can pass serialised data AND the owner_id to a method in the Pet Model which can update the DB. However, I also need to set the newly created $pet to $this->pet which I then access for a sequence of other related forms. Should I just set the session variable in the model method? Then in the Pet controller constructor, do a check for pet stored in session, if yes, assign to $this->pet...
If this makes any sense to anybody and you have some advice, i'd be grateful to hear it!
Here's a slightly left-field solution (which may or may not work depending on your situtation:
Require the user to enter a valid email address upon pet registration, and then link the user with the pet upon user registration by matching email address (or hash of email address).
If you're left with dangling pet references, you could send an email to the pet owner saying "I'm about to delete your pet" after a month (if there's no associated user id), or something like that.