Question title pretty much self explanatory. It is possible to create an id-less entity in Orion. An id = .* query returns normally as an id-less, although existing entity. But how can someone delete that entity? This request didn't work obviously:
{
"contextElements": [
{
"type": "",
"isPattern": "false",
"id": ""
}
],
"updateAction": "DELETE"
}
This is the returned query:
{
"contextElement": {
"type": "",
"isPattern": "false",
"id": "",
"attributes": [
{
"name": "temp",
"type": "integer",
"value": "15"
},
{
"name": "pressure",
"type": "integer",
"value": "720"
}
]
},
"statusCode": {
"code": "200",
"reasonPhrase": "OK"
}
}
There is a known bug (now fixed) in Orion that seems to be causing your issue. Basically Orion interprets the final "/" at the end of an URL as an empty element.
For example (as documented in the issue):
v1/contextEntityTypes queries for all types, while
v1/contextEntityTypes/ queries only for the empty type
In your particular case, something similar happens with some REST operations. If you do a GET /v1/contextEntities you will see all entities, including the empty-id one. You can query that particular entity with GET /v1/contextEntity/ (note the final "/").
And then, the DELETE method doesn't seem to use the same pattern. So if you do DELETE /v1/contextEntity/ You get a No context element found.
So, basically, this is another manifestation of a known bug.
Related
I have noticed that upon querying Orion CB, while it is working with provisioned devices and having IoT Agent receive HTTP and MQTT messages, it will always output all the values written in the quotation marks:
{
"id": "sensor_data",
"type": "Sensor",
"ActiveTime": {
"type": "Seconds",
"value": "17703",
"metadata": {
"TimeInstant": {
"type": "ISO8601",
"value": "2018-07-04T13:32:27.357Z"
}
}
},
"Distance": {
"type": "Number",
"value": "312",
"metadata": {
"TimeInstant": {
"type": "ISO8601",
"value": "2018-07-04T13:32:27.413Z"
}
}
}
}
However, if to work with only entities in Orion CB, it is possible to receive actual values (like in the example in the manual):
{
"id": "Room1",
"pressure": {
"metadata": {},
"type": "Integer",
"value": 720
},
"temperature": {
"metadata": {},
"type": "Float",
"value": 23
},
"type": "Room"
}
Sometimes, I need to receive the actual value from my sensor in order to format it and use in further applications, but they are in quotation marks, which makes it a little difficult.
Is it possible to somehow change?(maybe in device provisioning), or it really should be that way regarding devices?
Thanks in advance!
EDIT 1
This is the way I provisioned the device:
{
"devices": [
{
"device_id": "sensor_data",
"entity_name": "sensor_data",
"entity_type": "Sensor",
"transport": "MQTT",
"timezone": "Europe/Helsinki",
"attributes": [
{ "object_id": "act", "name": "ActiveTime", "type": "Seconds"},
{ "object_id": "dst", "name": "Distance", "type": "Number"}
]
}
]
}
And this is how the MQTT messages are sent from my sensor (I have set up the topics for IoT Agent to understand them)
/123456789/sensor_data/attrs/act 12
/123456789/sensor_data/attrs/dst 322
123456789 is the API Key I have set here.
This situation tipycally happens when IoT Agents uses NGSIv1 to push data to Context Broker, given that NGSIv1 always "string-fy" any attribute value. Recently, the ability to use NGSIv2 (which doesn't have this limitatino) was introduced in IoT Agents.
In order to solve your problem you have to:
Use a recent IOTA-UL version (the current one from master branch will work)
Enable NGSIv2 in configuration as explained in documentation. This is done in the config.js file:
config.iota = {
...
contextBroker: {
...
ngsiVersion: 'v2'
}
...
}
or using environament variable IOTA_CB_NGSI_VERSION=v2 for the IOTA-UL process.
Enable autocast as explained in documentation. This is done in config.js file:
config.iota = {
...
autocast: true,
...
}
or using environament variable IOTA_AUTOCAST=true for the IOTA-UL process.
Set the right type for each attribute at provision time. The documentation here) provides the right types:
Type "Number" for integer or float numbers
Type "Boolean" for boolean
Type "None" for null
Thus, in your case the provisioning for Distance is ok, but for ActiveTime you should use also Number as type.
is it possible to check, in an ARM Template, if the name for my Virtual Machine already exists?
I am developing a Solution Template for the Azure Marketplace. Maybe it is possible to set a paramter in the UiDefinition uniqe?
The goal is to reproduce this green Hook
A couple notes...
VM Names only need to be unique within a resourceGroup, not within the subscription
Solution Templates must be deployed to empty resourceGroups, so collisions with existing resources aren't possible
For solution templates the preference is that you simply name the VMs for the user, rather than asking - use something that is appropriate for the workload (e.g. jumpbox) - not all solutions do this but we're trying to improve that experience
Given that it's not likely we'll ever build a control that checks for naming collisions on resources without globally unique constraints.
That help?
This looks impossible, according to the documentation.
There are no validation scenarious.
I assume that you should be using the Microsoft.Common.TextBox UI element in your createUiDefinition.json.
I have tried to reproduce a green check by creating a simple createUiDefinition.json as below with a Microsoft.Common.TextBox UI element as shown below.
{
"$schema": "https://schema.management.azure.com/schemas/0.1.2-preview/CreateUIDefinition.MultiVm.json",
"handler": "Microsoft.Compute.MultiVm",
"version": "0.1.2-preview",
"parameters": {
"basics": [
{
"name": "textBoxA",
"type": "Microsoft.Common.TextBox",
"label": "VM Name",
"defaultValue": "",
"toolTip": "Please enter a VM name",
"constraints": {
"required": true
},
"visible": true
}
],
"steps": [],
"outputs": {}
}
}
I am able to reproduce the green check beside the VM Name textbox as shown below:
However, this green check DOES NOT imply the VM Name is Available.
This is because based on my testing, even if I use an existing VM Name in the same subscription, it is still showing the green check.
Based on the official documented constraints that are supported by the Microsoft.Common.TextBox UI element, it DOES NOT VALIDATE Name Availability.
Hope this helps!
While bmoore's point is correct that it's unlikely you would ever need this for a VM (nor is there an API for it), there are other compute resources that do have global naming requirements.
As of 2022 this concept is possible now with the use of the ArmApiControl UI element. It allows you to call ARM apis as part of validation in the createUiDefinition.json. Here is an example using the check name API for an Azure App service.
{
"$schema": "https://schema.management.azure.com/schemas/0.1.2-preview/CreateUIDefinition.MultiVm.json#",
"handler": "Microsoft.Azure.CreateUIDef",
"version": "0.1.2-preview",
"parameters": {
"basics": [
{}
],
"steps": [
{
"name": "domain",
"label": "Domain Names",
"elements": [
{
"name": "domainInfo",
"type": "Microsoft.Common.InfoBox",
"visible": true,
"options": {
"icon": "Info",
"text": "Pick the domain name that you want to use for your app."
}
},
{
"name": "appServiceAvailabilityApi",
"type": "Microsoft.Solutions.ArmApiControl",
"request": {
"method": "POST",
"path": "[concat(subscription().id, '/providers/Microsoft.Web/checknameavailability?api-version=2021-02-01')]",
"body": "[parse(concat('{\"name\":\"', concat('', steps('domain').domainName), '\", \"type\": \"Microsoft.Web/sites\"}'))]"
}
},
{
"name": "domainName",
"type": "Microsoft.Common.TextBox",
"label": "Domain Name Word",
"toolTip": "The name of your app service",
"placeholder": "yourcompanyname",
"constraints": {
"validations": [
{
"regex": "^[a-zA-Z0-9]{4,30}$",
"message": "Alphanumeric, between 4 and 30 characters."
},
{
"isValid": "[not(equals(steps('domain').appServiceAvailabilityApi.nameAvailable, false))]",
"message": "[concat('Error with the url: ', steps('domain').domainName, '. Reason: ', steps('domain').appServiceAvailabilityApi.reason)]"
},
{
"isValid": "[greater(length(steps('domain').domainName), 4)]",
"message": "The unique domain suffix should be longer than 4 characters."
},
{
"isValid": "[less(length(steps('domain').domainName), 30)]",
"message": "The unique domain suffix should be shorter than 30 characters."
}
]
}
},
{
"name": "section1",
"type": "Microsoft.Common.Section",
"label": "URLs to be created:",
"elements": [
{
"name": "domainExamplePortal",
"type": "Microsoft.Common.TextBlock",
"visible": true,
"options": {
"text": "[concat('https://', steps('domain').domainName, '.azurewebsites.net - The main app service URL')]"
}
}
],
"visible": true
}
]
}
],
"outputs": {
"desiredDomainName": "[steps('domain').domainName]"
}
}
}
You can copy the above code and test it in the createUiDefinition.json sandbox azure provides.
(Cannot summarize the problem in a single statement, hence the ambiguous title)
I create a JSON structure via Angular Typescript, wherein when a user interacts with certains parts of the component the JSON Structure gets updated.
Steps
Initially, the JSON under consideration is by default set to the following:
{
"keyword": {
"value": "product",
"type": "main"
}
}
For example, a user chooses some parameter Name. Once the user complies to certain steps in the UI, the JSON structure gets updated to the following:
{
"keyword": {
"value": "product",
"type": "main"
},
"Name": {
"value": " <hasProperty> Name",
"type": "dataprop"
}
}
Once the user selects a numeric value for a parameter like dryTime, the JSON gets updated to the following:
{
"20": { // WHY WOULD 20 be here?
"value": "<hasValue> 20",
"type": "fValue"
},
"keyword": {
"value": "Varnish",
"type": "main"
},
"Name": {
"value": " <hasProperty> Name",
"type": "dataprop"
},
"dryingTime": {
"value": " <hasProperty> dryingTime",
"type": "dataprop"
}
}
I understand that a JSON is an unordered data structure. But a previous implementation of something similar actually worked well, i.e., the value 20 here was 20.0 before and it was displayed after dryingTime in my JSON.
The order is critical for me as I parse all the Keys in the above mentioned JSON using a for loop and store it in an array. This array needs to show all the keys in the order of the User Interaction.
Where am I going wrong here if I decide to stay with JSON and not with an array to store such interactions?
Yes, JSON fields are unordered. JSON array is ordered.
If you want to keep the order of elements insterted, you could build your JSON like so:
{
"keyword": {
"value": "Varnish",
"type": "main"
},
"props": [
{
"name": "dryingTime",
"value": 20
},
{
"name": "anotherOrderedField",
"value": "fieldValue"
}
]
}
After some hours spent reading Zabbix Api's documentation, I haven't found a way of doing a search by key with more than one possible value.
So, with this code:
{
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "item.get",
"params": {
"output": "extend",
"hostids": " 10355",
"search": {
"key_": "[in_*|out_*]"
},
"sortfield": "name"
},
"auth": "15729708df1f5936f6ea840ae1b41cb6",
"id": 0
}
I'm trying to get every item which key is in_<anything> OR out_<anything> so, the output would be the combination of all the items related to the interfaces. Instead, I get this:
{"jsonrpc":"2.0","result":[],"id":0}
I know that there's the possibility to use filter instead of search but, from what I read, it is used when you want exact match, which is not the case.
Zabbix API (and filtering in other places) does not support regexp. In some versions you could pass wildcards, but that won't solve your current issue. You will have to do two separate API queries.
To answer the question in the comment here, search can be negated with the excludeSearch parameter - see the API documentation for more detail.
To this work you need put this key searchWildcardsEnabled
{
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "item.get",
"params": {
"output": "extend",
"hostids": " 10355",
"searchWildcardsEnabled": "true",
"search": {
"key_": "[in_*|out_*]"
},
"sortfield": "name"
},
"auth": "15729708df1f5936f6ea840ae1b41cb6",
"id": 0
}
I think you should consider using the searchByAny parameter that let's you find items that matchs any of the search criteria. Here is the correct json that you should try :
{
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "item.get",
"params": {
"output": "extend",
"hostids": " 10355",
"searchWildcardsEnabled": "true",
"search": {
"key_": [
"in_*",
"out_*"
]
},
"sortfield": "name"
},
"auth": "15729708df1f5936f6ea840ae1b41cb6",
"id": 1
}
I have a large JSON file that I'm trying to parse with JSON Slurper. The JSON file consists of information about bugs so it has things like issue keys, descriptions, and comments. Not every issue has a comment though. For example, here is a sample of what the JSON input looks like:
{
"projects": [
{
"name": "Test Project",
"key": "TEST",
"issues": [
{
"key": "BUG-1",
"priority": "Major",
"comments": [
{
"author": "a1",
"created": "d1",
"body": "comment 1"
},
{
"author": "a2",
"created": "d2",
"body": "comment 2"
}
]
},
{
"key": "BUG-2",
"priority": "Major"
},
{
"key": "BUG-3",
"priority": "Major",
"comments": [
{
"author": "a3",
"created": "d3",
"body": "comment 3"
}
]
}
]
}
]
}
I have a method that creates Issue objects based on the JSON parse. Everything works well when every issue has at least one comment, but, once an issue comes up that has no comments, the rest of the issues get the wrong comments. I am currently looping through the JSON file based on the total number of issues and then looking for comments using how far along in the number of issues I've gotten. So, for example,
parsedData.issues.comments.body[0][0][0]
returns "comment 1". However,
parsedData.issues.comments.body[0][1][0]
returns "comment 3", which is incorrect. Is there a way I can see if a particular issue has any comments? I'd rather not have to edit the JSON file to add empty comment fields, but would that even help?
You can do this:
parsedData.issues.comments.collect { it?.body ?: [] }
So it checks for a body and if none exists, returns an empty list
UPDATE
Based on the update to the question, you can do:
parsedData.projects.collectMany { it.issues.comments.collect { it?.body ?: [] } }