I am stuck over an access right situation,
What I Want is:
I have users creating articles/pages on MediaWiki, I have restricted it over registered/autoconfirmed users to only, But now the requirement is, that, Only an article can be displayed to anyone other than , creator or sysop only after the sysop approves that page/article. till then only the creator or sysop can edit that article.
I have tried FlaggedRevs extension, and several other small restrictions, but couldn't get exactly what I am looking for.
Thanks in advance for any suggestion.
I found the answers, there is an extension called "Approved Revs". With few options set and some messing around, I have done it.
Related
I have a use scenario where I'm testing a bot in google hangout. To facilitate testing of multiple users, I'd like to create a series of other bots that replicate the functions of users. But this is all dependent on the bots in the room listening to one another. It also requires that I get the userid of the bots so they can name each other. In Google Scripts I can find no way to retrieve that (the rest API is not an option).
Any suggestions?
The information is documented, but I understand GCP docs aren't the easiest to navigate. According to the Event Format reference: "Only messages from "real", non-bot users are delivered to bots. A bot will never receive messages posted by itself or by a different bot."
So the answer to the question appears to be no. Bots do not appear to be able to talk to each other. When you put the userid in the text property of the bot it does not replace it to an #botname as it does with human users. If anyone can figure out another way to do it I would appreciate it.
But the second question of where to get the bots userid I can now answer and I leave here in case anyone else is curious. This appears only in a message event, when a bot is mentioned as the property event.message.annotations[0].userMention.user.name
I'm encountering the same problem asked here. The list of organizations of an authenticated user https://<idm_domain>/user?access_token=xxxxxxxxxxxxx is always empty.
I tried to follow the guide reported in the previous post to solve my problem but as reported in the past question, I can't find the button Authorize, the point 7 in the guide, so it's impossible to achieve.
Someone can help me!
Thanks in advance.
Did you solve the problem?
You can assign roles to users in organization directly from the dialog that appears when you press "manage" button. There you must assign some specific roles to the user, then you will see the organization in the list retrieved from the service.
If it does not work for you, just ask and we can continue working on it.
I'm trying to verify the user's ownership of a Google place, restaurant and bars for now.
I checked this similar question, but it's unanswered.
Basically, the app I'm creating needs the place owners to post on behalf of the place. I want to verify the association of the person posting and the place so that regular users can't post junk. Is there a Google way of doing it ? If not, what other methods do you think is possible? Thanks in advance.
I was wondering how I would be able to create an anonymous link (blanking the referrer) for redirection (so they are not 100% aware of where the client came from).
So for example, user visits mydomain.com/product/2/ and wants to be redirected to the cheapest offer out there othersite.com/product/aiwdkaDOW important here is that the 'othersite' has to see this request as an manual input (so it looks like that the client wrote the url down in the URL bar).
Actually I just like to create the same effect Linkonym has
Thanks in advanced.
Anonymizing a link seems a little more complex to me (due to the fact that you don't want the target link to know that the traffic came from you) but as I expected, there are APIs and even This GitHub project that might interest you.
I want to create a script that runs on a Google site. The script would perform a specialized calculation for a given user and then display the answer for the user. The script would depend upon user input, but the code itself should not be viewable by the user. I want the code to exist in a "black box" so that the calculation formula can be kept secret. Is this possible?
I searched the documentation, but only found this, which does not address this question:
https://developers.google.com/apps-script/guides/services/authorization#permissions_and_types_of_scripts
Whether your App script is embedded in a site or written as a standalone script does not change a lot of things... the only difference will be the way you include it on a page as a gadget.
If it is embedded it will be available from a list of scripts in the page editing, if not you'll have to use the .exec url of the deployed webapp.
Anyway, that does not change the way people will have access to the app.
You can define these parameter when you deploy the app (which is mandatory in both cases), allowing for anonymous access or requiring to be logged in.
If I understood you correctly, you would like to restrict the access to some people but not share the code.
Depending on how you defined the access mode above and wether you are using a Google Apps inside a domain or not, you will be able to do it using 2 ways :
in a domain you can get the logged user identity and use that to accept/deny showing the app.
in a "normal" gmail account you will have to implement some sort of logging feature to request a user name and password to give access to the active part of the app.
In both case you never need to share the script itself, this sharing parameter is independent from the webapp access.
I hope I understood your question correctly... if not, feel free to comment.
You might check out the Private Functions section of the following page.....the example is similar to what you're referring to, I think.
https://developers.google.com/apps-script/guides/html/communication?hl=ru
I don't fully understand how they work and haven't used them myself, but I bookmarked it to figure out later. Maybe another user who understands Private Functions better can explain...