When using KeePass with the GoogleSync plugin (to sync the keypass db with Google Drive), I somehow messed up my config and received this message on every sync attempt:
Error occurred while sending a direct message or getting the response
I think what I actually did was try to switch my Google API credentials (from one API key to another)
The user config saves a Google auth key. In my case I changed the API credentials I wanted to use, but it could become corrupted in other ways and there doesn't seem to be a mechanism in KeePass/GoogleSync to rectify it.
Exit KeePass
Delete (or backup to a different name) the file %LOCALAPPDATA%\Dominik_Reichl\KeePass[...]\[version]\user.config
Restart KeePass and it'll regenerate it with the correct config
Found my reference here:
http://sourceforge.net/p/kp-googlesync/discussion/general/thread/5dc763ba/
Related
I am trying to connect my Soffid 3 server with our custom web application named Schrift. I am using а JSON REST Web Services Connector for this purpose. I added REST Web service plugin and then configured an agent with JSON/XML/SOAP Rest webservice type.
Loading of objects is working fine. My REST connector connects to the web service successfully and gets data of the accounts.
The problem is when I am trying to update some data (for example, I am trying to lock an account), nothing happens. And unfortunately I don't know what should be happening. When should REST connector send updated data to the managed system and in which way? I didn't find any log entries saying that REST connector was trying to update an object on managed system. Maybe I did smth wrong or missed something.
I would appreciate for any help. I can post any conf or log details if you need.
Update#1
(I did some investigation after the first answer)
I checked the agent settings: Read only and Manual account creation are set to no
The account was set to unmanaged type, but I succeeded in changing its type to shared and then to single without getting an error. Now it is set to single
The task queue is empty.
Also I've checked that update method is present and update properties are set correctly. updateParams is not set (it means that all attributes should be sent to the managed system).
But when I change status of the account (from Enable to Disable), nothing happens.
In the console log I can see only these lines
14-Sep-2021 13:26:29.708 INFO [BPM-Scheduler:192.168.7.121:1] com.soffid.iam.bpm.job.JobExecutorThread.run No job to execute
When I manually run the task Analize impact for changes on Schrift, Execution log shows
Changes detected for accounts
=============================
NO CHANGE DETECTED
Changes detected for roles
=============================
NO CHANGE DETECTED
Update#2
After many attempts I made some progress. Now when I make some changes in the account, the task named UpdateAccount baklykov#irf.com.ua#Schrift appears, but runs with an error.
At first it was 415 Unsupported Media Type error as I wrote in comments, but now it looks a little different
Throws exception updating object : Extensible object [type = account]
EmployeeEmail: baklykov#irf.com.ua
IsLockedOut: true (log truncated) ...
caused by Unexpected response, Content-Type: null
Update#3
I found out that soffid's request for updating the object was in improper format (all the parameters were passed in the html request instead of putting them in json body)
After researching I found a method's property called Encoding and set it to application/json value.
Now the parameters are passed in json body (that's what I need), but now the problem is that soffid puts all the parameters in json body, including the key parameter by which the object for updating should be determined. My guess this is the reason why the object in the target system is still not updated.
In other words my application expects a request like this:
https://myapp.mysite.com/api/v1/Soffid/Employees?EmployeeEmail=baklykov%40irf.com.ua :
{"EmployeeLastName":"Baklykov","EmployeeFirstName":"Ivan"}
but Soffid sends this:
https://myapp.mysite.com/api/v1/Soffid/Employees:
{"EmployeeLastName":"Baklykov","EmployeeFirstName":"Ivan","EmployeeEmail":"baklykov#irf.com.ua"}
The system should have created a UpdateAccount task in the task queue. Please, verify:
The task engine is in automatic mode. In read-only or manual mode, no task will be created.
If you are updating an account, check the account is not set as unmanaged. In that case, no tasks is created.
Finally, verify the task queue has not held the task up.
Have you checked the engine mode? Look at Main Menu > Administration > Configure Soffid > Integration engine > Smart engine settings
It should be set to automatic.
I'm trying to make a community connector to connect my database in BigQuery to data studio with the service account that I hooked up as the Owner/DataViewer/JobUser of the BigQuery project. I know that the service account works when connecting to BigQuery because I've tested it elsewhere. I copied from the connector code from this tutorial (https://developers.google.com/datastudio/solution/blocks/using-service-accounts) almost exactly, replacing the SQL string with my query and adding some different query parameters. I also stored the service account's credentials in my script properties by pasting the json object and storing it like:
var service_account_creds_obj = {
"type": "service_account",
"project_id": ...
...
}
scriptProperties.setProperty('SERVICE_ACCOUNT_CREDS', JSON.stringify(service_account_creds_obj));
However, I always get stuck in the flow when my getData function calls getOauthService().getAccessToken(), which doesn't ever successfully return. When I create a report using the connector, I get this error: "Access not granted or expired." I can't find the documentation for getAccessToken and I'm having trouble understanding why it won't terminate. I can see that it doesn't return because a console.log immediately before that line displays but it never gets to the log on the next line. Then my try-catch block catches the error that I'm seeing. Note that my getOauthService function is exactly the same as the one from the documentation/tutorial example, except that I've played around with the input text in the call to createService. That input text shouldn't really matter though right?
Please, I've been trying to debug this for hours, but the documentation on this is pretty horrible, and it's really hard to debug since the flow of the code is handled in the background and stackdriver logging is really buggy.
I figured out my problem. The documentation posted above said to set the OAuth2 scope to https://www.googleapis.com/auth/bigquery.readonly. However, I naively included
"oauthScopes": ["https://www.googleapis.com/auth/bigquery.readonly"]
in my manifest file. Meanwhile, the code I copied over from the documentation already included this line:
.setScope(['https://www.googleapis.com/auth/bigquery.readonly']);
So I'm not sure exactly why this caused a problem. But it must have prevented the OAuth2.createService function from properly getting set.
I've got an application that's been working for a long time.
Recently we created a new app/keys for it, and it's behaving strangely.
(I did figure out the scope requirements had been put in place. I am requesting bucket:create bucket:read data:read data:write).
When I upload a file to a bucket, I've traditionally called done the call to get the object details afterwards, to verify that it's successfully uploaded.
With the new key, I am intermittently getting this error:
GetObjectDetails: InternalServerError {"fault":{"faultstring":"Execution of ServiceCallout servicecallout-auth-acm-request failed. Reason: timeout occurred servicecallout-auth-acm-request","detail":{"errorcode":"steps.servicecallout.ExecutionFailed"}}}
Is this something I should be re-trying with a sleep in between? or is it indicative of something wrong with the upload?
(FYI - putting in a retry seems to have have resolved this for me, but I still don't know if that's the right answer - and if this issue might happen on other calls).
It could be that the service requires a slight delay between a put object and a get, so I would suggest either use a timer or a retry as you mentioned. However a successful response from the upload should be enough to ensure your object has been placed to the bucket without the need to double check.
I am not sure if this is a bug or an error on my side.
I created and instance on GCE and then proceeded to delete it. The deletion failed with message:
The resource 'projects/[PROJECT]/zones/[ZONE]/instances/[INSTANCE]'
was not found
Please note that this is an automated process that runs a couple times per day, so there wasn't a typo inside the commands.
Nevertheless, the instance was deleted.
Now, every time I try to create an instance with the same name, I get:
NAME ZONE MACHINE_TYPE INTERNAL_IP EXTERNAL_IP STATUS
ERROR: (gcloud.compute.instances.create) Some requests did not succeed:
- The resource 'projects/[PROJECT]/zones/[ZONE]/instances/[INSTANCE]' already exists
But I can't see the instance or its disk anywhere in the Developers Console, neither can I delete it from the command line since I get a resource not found.
I believe this is just a browser cache/cookies issue, where your cache still recognizes the resource name as existing when the resource is already deleted. Clearing the browser cache and cookies or using private browsing/incognito mode should do the trick.
Opening
https://cloud.google.com/appengine/docs/admin-api/reference/rest/v1/apps/repair
in a browser, entering the project ID + submitting has fixed a problem with the same error message for me.
Here is the params that I sent along with create shared link and got "Internal Server Error"
{"shared_link":{"access":"Collaborators","permissions":{"download": true}}}
This is a case of (1) bad documentation and (2) a bad error response.
You're seeing an error because the permissions parameter can only be used with the Open and Company access types*.
On (1) we should have this documented (I just updated our documentation to reflect this). On (2) we should be returning a more descriptive error (e.g. a 400 Bad Request and a message of " doesn't work with this access type. This is also in our development pipeline) "
*If you're really curious, it doesn't work with the Collaborators type because it's expected that the permissions set by the collaboration for each user will define their shared link access. Not the most straightforward thing, I understand.