Is it possible to manually change the API Name (a.k.a. Api.Id) of an Azure API after it has been created to something else (I understand that it has to be unique).
When creating a new API, the name (Api.Id) is user-friendly (e.g. same as the display name but all lower case with dashes). If this API is cloned, then the Name (Api.Id) becomes a GUID and is no longer user-friendly. I would like to update it so I can enter a human meaningful Name (e.g. lowercase with dashes... )
EDIT: The question is not about how to rename an "API Operation Name" when having cloned an operation. My question is about renaming an "API Name" when having cloned an API.
One of the workarounds to rename the cloned API in APIM Instance is:
Go to the APIM Instance > APIs > Select your API > Select the Operation you want to rename it > Click on Pencil Icon as shown here:
Now Click on Open Specification view Option:
Change the Operation Id on the Open Specification View Code displayed for that API:
Result:
Related
I have a key in my KV store, let's say /global/test/my-key and I use a token that has the following policy :
key "/global/test/my-key" {
policy = "read"
}
Why, using the UI, I can access the URL http://localhost:8500/v1/kv/global/test/my-key/edit but I have a 403 on the following URLs http://localhost:8500/v1/kv/global/test and http://localhost:8500/v1/kv/global ?
Is there a way for me to access my key from the UI starting at the URL http://localhost:8500/v1/kv ?
NOTE: I have tried the "list" policy, but it gives read access to the other keys, which is not what I want.
EDIT: I just realized I had forgot to mention another condition that I am trying to meet. I have another key called for instance /global/secret/my-other-key and I don't want that key to be viewed from the UI nor the folder /global/secret/.
If you wish to have access to all of the mentioned paths, you should use this policy instead:
key_prefix "global" {
policy = "read"
}
This policy will give you access to global and any "sub-paths" of it.
Consul does not currently support performing recursive reads on paths where your token only has access to a subset of the keys under that parent path.
There's an open GitHub issue requesting this functionality be added https://github.com/hashicorp/consul/issues/4513. I recommend upvoting that issue to indicate your interest, and subscribe to it for updates so that you can track its progress.
If your particular use case is not accurately reflected in the initial description, feel free to leave a comment with additional information.
I'm looking into how to use the Time Sheet Invoicing Upload and first port of call was the Try It Out page.
The documentation lists the value for the mandatory "Type" field as TIMESHEET INVOICING but this seems at odds with other calls (it's usually just the call name, e.g. Time Sheet Invoicing Upload). Have tried these values and multiple other variants on the "Try It Out" page but all have failed so far with "The Type value specified in this file is not recognized".
Grateful for any pointers on how to get this working and/or advice on whether the SAP Fieldglass REST API documentation for this call might need to be amended.
As an aside - am also wondering about some of the fields listed in the body - e.g. TIMESHEET ID and ORIGINAL TIMESHEET ID are in block capitals, which doesn't follow the convention of other fields and the API reference for this call just has "data": [ {} ] in the body with no actual fields present - again, this is at odds with other calls.
Re: Main question - The documentation is incorrect - the Type value should be "Time Sheet Invoicing Upload". Also found out that this particular call can only be made by a Supplier tenant, not a Buyer tenant. In our case, we needed to request SAP to enable Configuration Manager for that tenant and then we could log in as the Supplier, change to the linked Configuration Manager account, create the API Application Key and License Key, enable the integration connector and use all of the above to authenticate as the Supplier and make the API call... it also requires a Buyer field in the header (set to the 4 digit Buyer code e.g. "A123") - this also isn't mentioned in the documentation.
Re: Aside - Turns out the API is case insensitive for field names - e.g. "Timesheet ID" will work just as well as "TIMESHEET ID".
I have connected Wso2 with an external LDAP. So, i want to handle the LDAP groups. However in Wso2 doc it states to use :
groupOfNames as our objectClass and
member as our MembershipAttribute
However my current LDAP server is not like that. This means that i use
PosixGroup as my objectClass and
memberUid for my MembershipAttribute
This leads me to the point that , when i add a user to a group, then Wso2 goes and puts this value uid=b1,ou=users,dc=transip,dc=nl inside memberUid. This is not compatible with my set up. What i need is Wso2 to just put the user's uid in the memberUid field and then the entry will be compatible with the rest of my setup.
How can i configure Wso2 to pass the uid when adding a user to a group instead of passing dn (Distinguished Name).
According to JIRA [1], this issue has been already fixed in WSO2 IS 5.1.0. According to the JIRA to get your setup working you need to configure GroupObjectClass as "PosixGroup" and MembershipAttribute as "memberUid" in the UserStoreManager configuration relevant to your UserStore.
[1] https://wso2.org/jira/browse/IDENTITY-3400
The same question has posted in https://wso2.org/jira/browse/IDENTITY-6295 as well. In order to achieve this its need to write custom user store manager, changing member attribute to add only uid, rather full DN.
I want to link Tasks to our Bitbucket server. However, when I try to add the server (Tools > Tasks & Content > Configure servers), it wants me to choose a server type.
Q1. I have no idea what type to select. I haven't found any reference for this question.
Q2. If a type is chosen, it asks for the server url. Do I need just https://bitbucket.org or do I need something more specific?
Tools > Tasks & Content > Configure servers
Add Server type Generic
Tab: General
Server URL: https://api.bitbucket.org/2.0/repositories/*YOUR LOGIN*/*REPO_NAME*
Fill Username & Password
Put a tick in the Use HTTP authentication
Tab: Commit message
{summary} #{id} - When commiting ID will be set tasks
Tab: Server Configuration
Tasks List URL: {serverUrl}/issues?status=new&status=open
Single Task URL: {serverUrl}/issues/{id}
Response Type : JSON
and then fill the data as shown is not the screenshot
(screenshot)
Adding to the accepted answer, please note that version 2.0 of the Bitbucket API uses a different format for parameters noted here: Bitbucket API 2.0: Filter and sort API objects
The Task List URL should be: {serverUrl}/issues?q=%28state+%3D+%22new%22+OR+state+%3D+%22open%22%29
In Box API v1, it was possible to request creation of a shared link for a file or folder, without caring about what kind of sharing was required. In fact, it was not possible to ask for a particular type of share - you just used the public_share method and passed in the target type (file/folder) and target ID, and optionally a share password. In an Enterprise Account, for instance, this might result in the maximum access level being "company" or "collaborators", if public links are disallowed.
With Box API v2, according to the docs here, you need to specify an access parameter that has to be "open", "company", or "collaborators".
The problem is, using the wrong type may cause the share to fail. For instance, in a folder/account that only allows collaborators, I get a 400 error if I ask for a "open" share.
What I really want is to get exactly the same result as if the user clicked the "Share" link in the Box web site. Which is, it should enable sharing for the file but default the level appropriately.
Is there a way to do this with v2, without the admin having to tell us their "preferred" access level for shared links we create? I'm using the Java SDK, like this:
BoxItemRequestObject req = BoxItemRequestObject.createSharedLinkRequestObject(BoxSharedLinkRequestObject.createSharedLinkRequestObject("open"));
BoxItem item = itemsManager.createSharedLink(<ID>, req, BoxResourceType.FILE);
Thanks,
Ben Gilbert
Smartsheet.com
Just set the access to the empty set {}
So your request would look like this:
{"shared_link": {}}
I figured out how to make this work. I need to set access to null when creating the BoxSharedLinkRequestObject, like this:**
BoxItemRequestObject req = BoxItemRequestObject.createSharedLinkRequestObject(BoxSharedLinkRequestObject.createSharedLinkRequestObject(null));
This doesn't produce quite the same JSON as was recommended (shared_link: {}), but it does produce JSON that is apparently equivalent: shared_link: { access: null }. I couldn't figure out any way to produce an empty shared_link object using the SDK -- I either had to have a null shared_link (which didn't work at all) or some value for the access field.