How to archive Jira version with REST API - json

I'm trying to automatically archived versions in Jira.
So far, I've been able to create and update versions in Jira with the REST API, but no luck with archiving a version.
I've try just setting the field archived from false to true using something like this:
{ "update" : { "archived" : [{ "set" : true }] } }
I've also try to set the released field at the same time.
I did also try to send all version's fields with archived updated.
All without success, so I'm guessing there is something else that needs to be done in that case.
So to resume this, I am mainly trying to find the exact json content to archive a version since I already know how to use JIRA REST API.
Thanks.

As described in the API docs, versions don't use an "update" field for updating. Simply PUT the data {"archived": true} to http://JIRA-SERVER/rest/api/2/version/VERSION-ID.

Related

Jelastic manifest prepopulation of list values

I am creating a deploy for OpenMage e-commerce here: https://github.com/ProxiBlue/openmage-cluster
In the creation settings dialog, I want to prepopulate the TIMEZONE, LOCALES and CURRENCY from a list generated by a PHP script.
Relevant parts are here:
Generated prepopulate data: https://github.com/ProxiBlue/openmage-cluster/blob/main/settings/populate.txt
Script I use to make that: https://github.com/ProxiBlue/openmage-cluster/blob/main/scripts/settings_generate.php
and then the manifest: https://github.com/ProxiBlue/openmage-cluster/blob/main/manifest.jps#L31
I pinged Jelastic support and they gave me this format to use to make the prepopulate:
{ "result": 0, "data": { "yourSettingName1": "value1", "yourSettingName2": "value2" } }
however, that only seems to allow population of single value fields, so I end up with OBJECTS in the list selection:
There must obviously be a different format for this, but their docs don;t show what it should be.
Anyone can help me out here?
There must obviously be a different format for this, but their docs don't show what it should be.
Option "prepopulate" in JPS manifests can be used only to fill simple "Key:Value" pairs, and does not support a list of values.
Instead, for enabling more dynamic changes in prepopulated values, we suggest you use onBeforeInit event.
Example of OpenMage Cluster manifest with it you can find in the link below:
https://gist.github.com/SlavaKatiukha/6babcefcae557813fe11f994bc13599d#file-openmage-cluster-settings-example-yaml-L61-L69

Unable to add Fine grain access for Elasticsearch service for Cloudformation

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.

Fuzzy search and fail trying to create an entity in Orion

Does the new version (0.24) of Orion let fuzzy search (approximate string search) over entities properties?
In addition, I tried to create an entity with an empty string, but althought the server is returning a 201 code, the entity is not created.
//url to create entity (POST)
http://some.ip:port/v2/entities
//payload:
{
"type": "Test",
"id": "Test.1",
"nombre": ""
}
//reponse
code 201
//url to list entities (GET)
http://some.ip:port/v2/entities?type=Test
//response
[]
This case doesn't work in Orion 0.24.0 due to a bug that has been recently solved in the develop branch. The fix will be available in the version next to 0.24.0, either 0.24.1 or 0.25.0 (number not yet decided at the moment of writting this) by the end of september 2015.
Regarding fuzzy search, we haven't consider yet that functionality in NGSIv2. If you find it useful/needed I'd recommend you to create a new issue in the Orion repository, explaining the feature request as detailed as you can, please.

Grails 2.4.3, upgrade params, request

Upgrade from Grails 2.2.2 to Grails 2.4.3
we are attempting to test everything and our search which is done through a rest call, is receiving its search parameters on the request.JSON in 2.4.3. In 2.2.2 it used to be on the params object.
When did this change?
Why did this change?
The calling application has not changed how it is doing the calling. But, when we are upgrading, I am looking for the documentation on what else has changed in this area to make sure I cover it all.
The only thing I found is related to this: but it not very specific. http://grails.org/doc/latest/guide/introduction.html#whatsNew23
Old way
SearchDataTableCommand lSearchCommand = new SearchDataTableCommand()
bindData( lSearchCommand, params, [exclude: ['beforeDate', 'afterDate' ] ] )
// Need to set the date range manually to get to the correct type.
lSearchCommand.afterDay = params.date( 'afterDay', 'MM/dd/yyyy' )
lSearchCommand.beforeDay = params.date( 'beforeDay', 'MM/dd/yyyy' )
New way
bindData( lSearchCommand, request.JSON, [exclude: ['beforeDate', 'afterDate' ] ] )
There were major changes to databinding in Grails 2.3. If you want to revert to the old behaviour, try adding:
grails.databinding.useSpringBinder = true
to grails-app/conf/Config.groovy. AFAIK, the best way to see all the changes from versions A and B of Grails is to go through the release notes for each version between the two. The easiest way to find them is via the "Select a major version" dropdown on the downloads page.

Is MutationRecord.oldValue something I should be using?

I'm using the latest Google Chrome stable (19.0.1084.56 m) on Windows 7 and experimenting with Mutation observers for the first time. (The project is a user script for a third party website, the server of which I have no access to.)
So it happens that MutationRecord has a field oldValue:
record . oldValue
The return value depends on type. For "attributes", it is the value of the changed attribute before the change. For "characterData", it is the data of the changed node before the change. For "childList", it is null.
So I'm monitoring for changes to the characterData but when I get the MutationRecord the oldValue field is always null.
Should it be working, is there a possibility I've got something wrong, or is this feature just too bleeding edge to expect to work yet?
Is there somewhere I can find Google's documentation, bug report, feature request, etc that might declare whether this is implemented or when it might be?
Configure your observer with:
observer.observe(container, {
attributeOldValue : true
});
Full API documentation:
https://developer.mozilla.org/pt-BR/docs/Web/API/MutationObserver