I am creating a Tag Policy in AWS. I need to develop a rule to restrict the value of one of the keys to a specific format.
I need the end user to enter the value in yyyymmdd format. How can I build the JSON policy to reflect this?
This is what I have so far. I am using it in
{
"tags": {
"DateCreated": {
"tag_key": {
"##assign": "DateCreated"
},
"tag_value": {
"##assign": [
"yyyymmdd"
]
}
},
"enforced_for": {
"##assign": [
"s3:bucket" ]
}
}
}
}
I think tag policies do not support regex etc. to validate values so alternative solution would be using AWS Config and writing a custom config policy rule by using Guard policy language or Lambda function.
Use proactive evaluation to restrict users to create tags which does adhere to set rules.
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/config/latest/developerguide/evaluate-config_develop-rules.html
Related
This issue is a bit tricky to describe so bear with me and please ask questions if I am missing anything...
Say you have a json object that defines a list of features, each feature has a the same three properties but has a property that has an entirely different structure. For example:
{
features: [
{
id: "feature-a",
enabled: true,
configurationData: {
featureAConfigPropertyA: {
somePrperty: "whatever",
anotherProperty: true
},
featureAConfigPropertyB: "some string"
}
},
{
id: "feature-b",
enabled: true,
configurationData: {
featureBConfigArrayPropertyA: ["some string"],
featureBConfigPropertyB: [
{
"id": "some string",
"name": "some string",
"description": "some string",
"enabled": true
}
]
}
}
]
}
The actual structure of each feature is irrelevant. I am just trying to express this via json schema whereby the structure of configurationData for each feature is dependent on or dictated by the feature id value of its parent.
EDIT: I guess technically it doesnt need to be dependent on so long as either structure of configurationData is valid schema for that property on the feature schema itself. Also, the types in configurationData arent arbitrary, they would always be one of the two types for a given feature in this example.
This however needs to be structured in a way that can be expressed via Formly as I am using this to generate forms. In this case it would be an array of ObjectFieldTypes, one for feature a and one for feature b, which would enumerate the three properties and provide Input field types, until it got to configurationData at which point it would use an ObjectFieldType again, which would now be different for each field type.
The issue here is that 1) I'm not sure how to express this in json schema and 2) I can't use things like patternProperties with formly because the properties have to be explicitly defined in the json schema in order for formly to render the field types for each property. Although patternProperties would technically be valid schema in this case, if the schema doesn't define those properties, then the model in the valueChanges observable on the FormGroup just excludes them entirely. So I would end up with:
{
features:[
{
id: "feature-a",
enabled: true,
configurationData: { }
},
{
id: "feature-b",
enabled: true,
configurationData: { }
}
]
}
I have tried the if then else construct, but I cant tell if the schema is wrong or if formly just doesn't support this. I made a stack blitz for this below:
https://stackblitz.com/edit/angular-g45ydm?file=src%2Fassets%2Fjson-schema%2Fif_then.json
I'm new to Qradar and facing difficulties in understanding filter parameter in Qradar REST api /siem/offenses. Can anyone suggest me how to use filter based on offense 'rules' field? As rules is a list of JSON objects, i'm finding it difficult to write filter.
sample offense with rules field
{
"username_count": 1,
"description": "String",
"rules": [
{
"id": 1,
"type": "String <one of: ADE_RULE, BUILDING_BLOCK_RULE, CRE_RULE>"
}```
]
}
We experienced a similar issue and find a way out, you can use 'contains' keyword to access list elements. For example, to filter rules[0]["id"] you could use:
rules contains (id = 42)
Reading the following documentation:
To create references for a composite design in Model Derivative. The description of references is stored in Model Derivative. To use it with the POST job endpoint, you need to set checkReferences to true.
(Extracted from here)
https://forge.autodesk.com/en/docs/model-derivative/v2/reference/http/urn-references-POST/
Looking at the documentation for the POST JOB:
https://forge.autodesk.com/en/docs/model-derivative/v2/reference/http/job-POST/
CTRL + F "checkReferences" = 0 results.
(I read the Request Body Structure entirely... could not find that...)
Where do I put this checkreferences?
Where is "checkreferences" in the "POST JOB" documentation? (Besides the reference on "urn references")
As the tutorial described, the checkreferences parameter is part of the input. It's used for checking references of the input design and works for all supported formats. If file references are not created in advance, this parameter will be ignored by our API service according to our engineering team.
{
"input": {
"urn": "dXJuOmFkc2sub2JqZWN0czpvcy5vYmplY3Q6bW9kZWxkZXJpdmF0aXZlL0E1LmlhbQ",
"checkReferences": true //!<<< Here
},
"output": {
"formats": [
{
"type": "stl",
"advanced": {
"format": "binary",
"exportColor": true,
"exportFileStructure": "multiple"
}
}
]
}
}
Trying to figuring out how to deserialize this kind of json in talend components :
{
"ryan#toofr.com": {
"confidence":119,"email":"ryan#toofr.com","default":20
},
"rbuckley#toofr.com": {
"confidence":20,"email":"rbuckley#toofr.com","default":15
},
"ryan.buckley#toofr.com": {
"confidence":18,"email":"ryan.buckley#toofr.com","default":16
},
"ryanbuckley#toofr.com": {
"confidence":17,"email":"ryanbuckley#toofr.com","default":17
},
"ryan_buckley#toofr.com": {
"confidence":16,"email":"ryan_buckley#toofr.com","default":18
},
"ryan-buckley#toofr.com": {
"confidence":15,"email":"ryan-buckley#toofr.com","default":19
},
"ryanb#toofr.com": {
"confidence":14,"email":"ryanb#toofr.com","default":14
},
"buckley#toofr.com": {
"confidence":13,"email":"buckley#toofr.com","default":13
}
}
This JSON comes from the Toofr API where documentation can be found here .
Here the actual sitation :
For each line retreived in the database, I call the API and I got this (the first name, the last name and the company change everytime.
Does anyone know how to modify the tExtractJSONField (or use smthing else) to show the results in tLogRow (for each line in the database) ?
Thank you in advance !
EDIT 1:
Here's my tExtractJSONfields :
When using tExtractJSONFields with XPath, you need
1) a valid XPath loop point
2) valid XPath mapping to your structure relative to the loop path
Also, when using XPath with Talend, every value needs a key. The key cannot change if you want to loop over it. Meaning this is invalid:
{
"ryan#toofr.com": {
"confidence":119,"email":"ryan#toofr.com","default":20
},
"rbuckley#toofr.com": {
"confidence":20,"email":"rbuckley#toofr.com","default":15
},
but this structure would be valid:
{
"contact": {
"confidence":119,"email":"ryan#toofr.com","default":20
},
"contact": {
"confidence":20,"email":"rbuckley#toofr.com","default":15
},
So with the correct data the loop point might be /contact.
Then the mapping for Confidence would be confidence (the name from the JSON), the mapping for Email would be email and vice versa for default.
EDIT
JSONPath has a few disadvantages, one of them being you cannot go higher up in the hierarchy. You can try finding out the correct query with jsonpath.com
The loop expression could be $.*. I am not sure if that will satisfy your need, though - it has been a while since I've been using JSONPath in Talend because of the downsides.
I have been ingesting some complex json structures and did this via minimal json libraries, and tjava components within talend.
I'm having trouble properly formatting one particular soap parameter using the node-soap module for node.js as a client, to a 3rd-party SOAP service.
The client.describe() for this method says this particular input should be in the shape of:
params: { 'param[]': {} }
I have tried a bunch of different JSON notations to try to fit my data to that shape.
Examples of formats that do NOT work:
"params": { "param": [ {"myParameterName": "myParameterValue"} ] }
"params": [ "param": { "name": "myParameterName", "_": "myParameterValue"} ]
"params": { "param" : [ {"name": "myParameterName", "_": "myParameterValue"} ] }
"params": { "param[]": {"myParameterName": "myParameterValue" } }
"params": { "param[myParameterName]": {"_": "myParameterValue" } }
I must be overlooking something, and I suspect I'm going to feel like Captain Obvious when some nice person points out what I'm doing wrong.
Here is what DOES work, using other soap clients, and how they handle the "named parameter with a value"
soapUI for this method successfully accepts this particular input via XML in the shape of:
<ns:params>
<ns:param name="myParameterName">myParameterValue</ns:param>
</ns:params>
Also, using PHP, I can successfully make the call by creating a stdClass of arrays like so:
$parms = new stdClass;
$parms->param = array(
array(
"name"=>"myParameterName","_"=>"myParameterValue"
)
);
and then eventually passing
'params' => $parms
to the PHP soap client
Many thanks!
To get a better look at what XML was being generated by node-soap, I added a console.log(message) statement to the node_modules/soap/lib/client.js after the object-to-XML encoding. I then began experimenting with various JSON structures to figure out empirically how they were mapping to XML structures.
I found a JSON structure for node-soap to generate the XML in my 3rd-party's required named-parameter-with-value format. I was completely unaware of the "$value" special keyword. Looks like this may have been added in the 0.4.6 release from mid-June 2014. See the change history
"params": [
{
"param": {
"attributes": {
"name": "myParameterName"
},
$value: "myParameterValue"
}
}
]
(note the outer array, which gives me the luxury of specifying multiple "param" entries, which is sometimes needed by this particular 3rd-party API)
generates this XML:
<tns:params>
<tns:param name="myParameterName">myParameterValue</tns:param>
</tns:params>
which perfectly matches the structure in soapUI (which I already knew worked) of:
<ns:params>
<ns:param name="myParameterName">myParameterValue</ns:param>
</ns:params>