currently in Netlify you can create aliases of my custom domain normally, but I would like to know if i can add these alias from an API / Programmatically.
Netlify provides documentation on their api including the following:
UPDATE SITE
PATCH /api/v1/sites/{site_id} will let you update some attributes on a site
PUT /api/v1/sites/{site_id} will let you update some attributes on a site
This lets you update a site. Takes all the same parameters as when
creating a site.
When creating a site, you can set the following properties:
name, the name of the site (mysite.netlify.com)
custom_domain, the custom domain of the site (www.example.com)
password, password protect the site
force_ssl, will force SSL on the site if SSL is enabled
domain_aliases, is an array of OTHER hostnames your site has in addition to the custom domain
processing_settings, lets you set the following processing settings: {“css”: {“bundle”: true, “minify”: true}, “js”: {“bundle”: true, “minify”: true}, “html”: {“pretty_urls”: true, “canonical_urls”: true}, “images”: {“optimize”: true}}
repo, lets you configure continuous deployment. It’s a bit complicated to create a repo object so please contact support for guidance if you want to do this.
Based on this, I suspect you would be able to use their API to adjust your custom domain - however they do not make any reference to a means to adjust aliases such that you can control more than one domain at a time. You may be able to contact their support team and request assistance if that is something you require.
Related
How can the Dynamic Sub domain routing feature be implementing in NextJS?
Example: If a user comes with username abc in site xyz then he can access his
site on abc.xyz.com
Also, if the user have abc.com domain then he can point abc.com to abc.xyz.com
So in future if someone opens abc.com then abc.xyz.com is served. And in URL
also the abc.com is shown.
I have investigated few plugin in NPM like vhost and wildcard-subdomains but not sure that is right way to take on this issue.
The vhost requires changes in system hosts in local system and wildcard-subdomain solves the issue purely with routing.
The Local System Setting I have customized Server.js With Code Which Works Temporarily, but does't seems to be a solution which can be used in production :
Server.js
...
if (pathname === "/demo.demo.com") {
app.render(req, res, "/demo.demo.com", query);
}
...
And in _app.js
static async getInitialProps(appArgument) {
...
return {
...
renderFrom: "demo.demo.com"
};
}
Also in my host I have demo.demo.com point to localhost.
The site works for me in demo.demo.com:3000 but how to generalise it in production scenarios
with Database and CNAME Records and add/change CNAME Record automatically with User Action.
On Vercel (the creators of Next.js), we support Wildcard Domains out of the box. Within Next.js, you then only need to read the Domain from the headers of the incoming request, parse it and then respond with the right content.
I hope that was helpful!
I just found this blog post https://demo.vercel.pub/platforms-starter-kit, which was published 6 days ago.
It announces https://platformize.co/, a product that does just that.
Multi-tenant applications serve multiple customers across different subdomains/custom domains with a single unified codebase.
For example, this blog is a multi-tenant application:
Subdomain: demo.vercel.pub
Custom domain: platformize.co (maps to demo.vercel.pub)
Build your own: app.vercel.pub
Another example is Hashnode, a popular blogging platform. Each writer has their own unique .hashnode.dev subdomain for their blog:
eda.hashnode.dev
katycodesstuff.hashnode.dev
pit.hashnode.dev
Users can also map custom domains to their .hashnode.dev subdomain:
catalins.tech → pit.hashnode.dev
I am creating CloudFormation stack with Elasticsearch service, however it fails for AdvancedSecurityOptions, which works perfectly fine with aws es create-elasticsearch-domain
my JSON template snippet is below:
...
"AdvancedOptions": {
"rest.action.multi.allow_explicit_index": true
},
"AdvancedSecurityOptions": {
"Enabled": true,
"InternalUserDatabaseEnabled": false,
"MasterUserOptions": {
"MasterUserARN": "arn:aws:iam::1234567890:role/role_name"
}
},
"DomainName": {
"Ref": "ESDomainName"
}
...
I am unable to get this code working, any help related to fine grain access control would be really appreciated.
The AdvancedSecurityOptions is the latest addition to Amazon Elasticsearch service added recently as part of Fine Grained Access Control. This is available only via Console, CLI and API for now.
I am not sure if the thread is with outdated info, but according to the official AWS documentation on this link it should be possible to use the AdvancedSecurityOptions for Fine Grained Access Control. It even states that it is meant to be used for FGAC at the top of the page.
Continuing from DNakevski# answer above, for FGAC we need to ensure the following three settings in the CFN template are set to true since they serve as pre-requisites:
EncryptionAtRestOptions
NodeToNodeEncryptionOptions and
HTTPS.
Further, the important parameter for FGAC in the CFN template is AdvancedSecurityOptions and needs to be set to Enabled: true
AmazonES/Opendistro-for-ES provides two ways for security with FGAC. One is through using a IAM user as a master-user and other is through having basic auth.
If you need to take the IAM way then set the InternalUserDatabaseEnabled to false and only have the parameter *MasterUserARN: "IAM User ARN" under the MasterUserOptions field.
If you need to take the basic auth (username and password) approach set the InternalUserDatabaseEnabled to true and have the MasterUserName: "any-name" and the MasterUserPassword: "xxx"* Please have at least one lower case, one upper case, one digit and one special character for the password else the CFN template will rollback. However, the failure message is easily seen on the CFN console under events.
I have a simple working CFN yaml here doing the same just in case.
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.
I am unable to load an iWidget externally on the communities page
This is my widget def:
<widgetDef defId="qmiWidget" primaryWidget="false" modes="view fullpage edit search"
url="http://questionmine.com/app1/widgets/index/publishProject_iWidget"/>
But it replaces the http and tries to load it internally
"NetworkError: 403 Forbidden - https://connectionsww.demos.ibm.com/communities/ajaxProxy/http/questionmine.com/app1/widgets/index/publishProject_iWidget"
Any idea how can I do this ?
Since your widget resides on another domain, you have to configure the "Ajax Proxy" to allow this.
Take a look at this here:
http://www-10.lotus.com/ldd/lcwiki.nsf/xpDocViewer.xsp?lookupName=IBM+Connections+4.5+Documentation#action=openDocument&res_title=Configuring_the_AJAX_proxy_ic45&content=pdcontent
For testing purposes (ONLY testing) it would be safe to allow "*" but for a production environment it is strongly advised to be more specific, in your case something like "questionmine.com/app1/*"
You can even configure specific proxy rules per application (Communities, Profiles, Homepage,...)
http://www-10.lotus.com/ldd/lcwiki.nsf/xpDocViewer.xsp?lookupName=IBM+Connections+4.5+Documentation#action=openDocument&res_title=Configuring_the_AJAX_proxy_for_a_specific_application_ic45&content=pdcontent
BTW: If you ever tried to enable feeds in a community, the same applies. Without further configuration, only same-domain feeds would be allowed.
I'm checking if this is a sitecore bug, or if I'm missing something obvious.
EDIT FOR CLARIFICATION: The problem I'm having is that I'm trying to set up the configuration settings in the Domains.config file so that Sitecore shouldn't be creating (and/or returning) an anonymous user for a domain set up this way. However, if I use the Domain.GetUsers() function on the domain, I still get the anonymous user returned.
The membership provider is a custom built and connects to LDAP in read only mode.
Details
Using Sitecore 6.4.1 and given the following domain configuration in App_Config/Security/domains.config
<domain name="DOMAINNAME" ensureAnonymousUser="false" anonymousUserName="" everyoneRoleName="" />
and these comments in that domain.config file
anonymousUserName: <snip> Set to blank to disable the anonymous user for the domain. Optional
ensureAnonymousUser: Indicates if the domain should ensure that an anonymous user for the domain exists in the Membership database. Optional - default value: false
everyoneRoleName: <snip> Set to blank to disable the everyone role for the domain. Optional - default value: Everyone
If I use the following code,
List<Sitecore.Security.Accounts.User> users = new List<Sitecore.Security.Accounts.User>();
var domain = Sitecore.Security.Domains.Domain.GetDomain(DOMAINNAME);
users.AddRange(domain.GetUsers().ToArray<Sitecore.Security.Accounts.User>());
I get the anonymous user included in users list. I assumed from the comments in the domain.config file that I shouldn't get the anonymous user if I set up my domain as above.
Is there something obvious that I'm missing?
Just a guess as I have not used 6.4 yet or tweaked any of those types of setting before... but I believe Sitecore always comes pre-packaged with the Anonymous user in the membership. By setting ensureAnonymousUser to false you're just telling it not to ensure its there, but its already there by default. Why don't you try this test:
Set ensureAnonymousUser to true then delete [*] the Anonymous user from the user manager.
Log out and back in and see if it's there again. If so then the "ensure" aspect of that worked. So...
Set ensureAnonymousUser to false then do the same thing. Does the user come back?
This is really just a hunch on how it works -- I don't have an environment like that setup right now to play with, but its worth a shot.
[*] - to delete a user form the User Manager, go to Sitecore > Security > User Manager
I think it's more question to membership provider you use. Take a look at Active Directory Module
Maybe this is something that could help you.