Hi so i am manually inserting in my live stream using a node js googleapis/youtube package. The message shows as a plain text message, what i would like to know is how can i change the design of this text message so that it is more noticeable like maybe highlighting it? I am currently using the following code
const youtubeService = {};
youtubeService.insertMessage = messageText => {
console.log(myliveChatId);
const response = youtube.liveChatMessages.insert(
{
auth: auth,
part: 'snippet',
resource: {
snippet: {
type: 'textMessageEvent',
liveChatId: myliveChatId,
textMessageDetails: {
messageText: 'hello man'
}
}
}
},
(error) => {
console.log(error);
}
);
console.log(response);
};
EDIT:
This is how a chat message usually appears
what i want is something like this
Note: The message that is inserted onto my livestream via the code wont be through my account but rather someone else's.
Related
I am trying to implement a webchat with Twilio Programmable Video and its Javascript SDK.
So far I have managed to create a Room (in the backend) and connect the current user to the room.
The video is streamed from the local webcam (on a PC) to a div which is called 'remote-media-div'.
When the user is connected and video is seen on the screen, Twilio inserts a tag and a tag into remote-media-div
I would like to let the users choose the camera if they have more than one. I get the list of cameras and show it in a drop-down. When I select the webcam I run the below code to switch the stream to a newly selected camera. The second webcam's recording light is turned on but the video is still being received from the previous camera. What am I doing wrong?
let currentStream = null;
$.ajax({
url: `/operations/Room/Create`,
type: 'POST',
contentType: "application/json",
success: function (result) {
var roomName = result.room.name;
var token = result.room.token;
Twilio.Video.connect(token,
{
name: `${roomName}`,
audio: true,
maxAudioBitrate: 16000,
video: { height: 1000, frameRate: 24, width: 1000 },
networkQuality: {local:1, remote: 1}
}
).then(function(room) {
currentStream= room.stream;
navigator.mediaDevices.enumerateDevices().then(gotDevices);
const localParticipant = room.localParticipant;
localParticipant.tracks.forEach(publication => {
const track = publication.track;
document.getElementById('remote-media-div').appendChild(track.attach());
});
}, function(error) {
console.error('Unable to connect to Room: ' + error.message);
});
},
error: function (error) {
console.log(error);
}
});
When the drop-down changes, I switch the media stream.
function stopMediaTracks(stream) {
stream.getTracks().forEach(track => {
track.stop();
});
}
var cameraId = 1; // new Camera Id
const videoConstraints = {};
videoConstraints.deviceId = { exact:cameraId };
const constraints = {
video: videoConstraints,
audio: true
};
if (currentStream) {
stopMediaTracks(currentStream);
}
debugger;
const video = document.getElementsByTagName('video');
navigator.mediaDevices
.getUserMedia(constraints)
.then(stream => {
currentStream = stream;
video.srcObject = stream;
return navigator.mediaDevices.enumerateDevices();
})
.catch(error => {
console.error(error);
});
This code, as I said, does not turn the previous camera off. And the video (my own picture) keeps coming from the previous camera although the new camera is on too.
I have looked at the sample codes on GitHub and I don't seem to have done it incorrectly.
Twilio developer evangelist here.
I think I know the sample code on GitHub that you are looking at (I think it's mine 😉) but you have missed that there is a sample Video Chat available there too.
First, I can tell you that you are not seeing the first stream end because you are trying to set currentStream to room.stream which doesn't exist. This means stopMediaTracks is never called.
Secondly, you are not applying the new video stream to the room, so it won't be seen by other participants in the call. You need to turn the new camera stream into a LocalVideoTrack and then publish the track to the room.
I recommend you read through this blog post on changing cameras during a Twilio video call and check this example code for changing a camera during a Twilio Video call.
Trying to follow this blog post Create a Smart Voicemail with Twilio, JavaScript and Google Calendar
When I run the code in Google Developer API Test Console, it works. However, the same parameters called within Twilio Function which runs NodeJS returns an error "ReferenceError: calendar is not defined"
I've made the Google Calendar events public and I've tried viewing it using the public URL and it works too. For someone reason calling it withing Twilio Functions is resulting in an error.
const moment = require('moment');
const { google } = require('googleapis');
exports.handler = function(context, event, callback) {
// Initialize Google Calendar API
const cal = google.calendar({
version: 'v3',
auth: context.GOOGLE_API_KEY
});
//Read Appointment Date
let apptDate = event.ValidateFieldAnswer;
var status = false;
const res = {
timeMin: moment().toISOString(),
timeMax: moment().add(10, 'minutes').toISOString(),
items: [{
id: context.GOOGLE_CALENDAR_ID
}]
};
console.log(res);
cal.freebusy.query({
resource: res
}).then((result) => {
const busy = result.data.calendars[calendar].busy;
console.log("Busy: " + busy);
if (busy.length !== 0) {
let respObj1 = {
"valid": false
};
console.log("Failed");
callback(null, respObj1);
} else {
let respObj1 = {
"valid": true
};
console.log("Success");
callback(null, respObj1);
}
}).catch(err => {
console.log('Error: checkBusy ' + err);
let respObj1 = {
"valid": false
};
callback(null, respObj1);
});
};
Have you encountered this before or is anyone able to identify the issue here?
Thanks
This line seems to be the issue:
const busy = result.data.calendars[calendar].busy;
As far as I can tell, calendar is never defined. This should work instead:
const busy = result.data.calendars[context.GOOGLE_CALENDAR_ID].busy;
It looks like this line of the code is different between the "Google Calendar FreeBusy Queries" and "Recording VoiceMails" sections of the tutorial and needs to be updated in the latter code sample.
I've created an html file with embedded Watson Virtual Agent chat bot, code similar below, with WVA strictly using the building core capabilities:
IBMChat.init({
el: 'ibm_chat_root',
baseURL: 'https://api.ibm.com/virtualagent/run/api/v1',
botID: '',
XIBMClientID: '',
XIBMClientSecret: ''
});
What I noticed is if I run the WVA in Preview mode, and have input "pay bill", the WVA can come back with two piece response, with first:
Accessing your account information...
and second the make payment:
Your account balance is $42.01 due on 5/17/2017. What would you like to do? (More options coming soon!)
However, if I enter the same in my HTML chatbot, the response only comes back with the first part:
Accessing your account information...
and second part never comes out.
Does anyone else experience the same problem?
The version in the "Preview" mode has some mock "action" handlers setup. Obviously, not every one of you users would owe $42! In the sample code on the github, the mock action handlers are not setup. There are examples on how to subscribe to those action events with handlers here: https://github.com/watson-virtual-agents/chat-widget/tree/master/examples/basic-actions-example
As of 5/31/17 you can cover all the built in actions using the code snippet below...
const config = { instance: null };
const getUserProfileVariablesMap = {
'bill_amount': '42.01',
'payment_due_date': (() => {
const currentDate = new Date(new Date().getTime() + 24 * 60 * 60 * 1000);
return `${currentDate.getMonth() + 1}/${currentDate.getDate()}/${currentDate.getFullYear()}`;
})(),
'authorized_users': 'Bob Everyman and Jane Doe'
};
const getUserProfileVariables = (data) => {
const variables = data.message.action.args.variables;
variables.forEach(v => {
const value = getUserProfileVariablesMap[v];
(value) ? config.instance.profile.set(v, value) : config.instance.profile.set(v, '[sample data]');
});
config.instance.sendSilently('success');
};
const success = () => config.instance.sendSilently('success');
const agent = () => config.instance.receive('On your own site you would run code to connect to an agent now.');
const accountSettings = () => config.instance.receive('On your own site you would run code to open the Account Settings page now.');
function registerActions(instance) {
config.instance = instance;
instance.subscribe('action:getUserProfileVariables', getUserProfileVariables);
instance.subscribe('action:updateAddress', success);
instance.subscribe('action:updateUserName', success);
instance.subscribe('action:updatePhoneNumber', success);
instance.subscribe('action:updateEmail', success);
instance.subscribe('action:payBill', success);
instance.subscribe('action:sendPaymentReceipt', success);
instance.subscribe('action:agent', agent);
instance.subscribe('action:openAccountSettingsPage', accountSettings);
};
window.IBMChatActions = {
registerActions: registerActions
};
// window.IBMChatActions.registerActions(window.IBMChat);
On the Administrative Preview, you are getting fake code stubs that handle action requests from the agent.
When one of these actions are invoked, the widget will print the "Processing..." message and then invoke all registered subscribers for that action. It is up to these registered subscribers to continue the conversation flow by silently sending "success", "failure", or "cancel" back to the server.
For example, the agent might pass down the "payBill" action. You would want to call your payment gateway, determine if it was successful, and then notify the agent of the result:
IBMChat.init(/* Settings */);
IBMChat.subscribe('action:payBill', function() {
var data = {
amount: IBMChat.profile.get('amount'),
card: {
number: IBMChat.profile.get('cc_number'),
// ... other private card data
}
};
$.post('https://www.myserver.com/payment-gateway', data)
.done( function() {
IBMChat.sendSilently('success');
})
.fail( function() {
IBMChat.sendSilently('failure');
});
});
Actions Documentation
https://github.com/watson-virtual-agents/chat-widget/blob/master/docs/DOCS.md#actions
I need to make a POST request and send some data. I'm using the service worker sync to handle offline situation.
But is there a way to pass the POST data to the service worker, so it makes the same request again?
Cause apparently the current solution is to store requests in some client side storage and after client gets connection - get the requests info from the storage and then send them.
Any more elegant way?
PS: I thought about just making the service worker send message to the application code so it does the request again ... but unfortunately it doesn't know the exact client that registered the service worker :(
You can use fetch-sync
or i use postmessage to fix this problem, which i agree that indexedDB looks trouble.
first of all, i send the message from html.
// send message to serviceWorker
function sync (url, options) {
navigator.serviceWorker.controller.postMessage({type: 'sync', url, options})
}
i got this message in serviceworker, and then i store it.
const syncStore = {}
self.addEventListener('message', event => {
if(event.data.type === 'sync') {
// get a unique id to save the data
const id = uuid()
syncStore[id] = event.data
// register a sync and pass the id as tag for it to get the data
self.registration.sync.register(id)
}
console.log(event.data)
})
in the sync event, i got the data and fetch
self.addEventListener('sync', event => {
// get the data by tag
const {url, options} = syncStore[event.tag]
event.waitUntil(fetch(url, options))
})
it works well in my test, what's more you can delete the memory store after the fetch
what's more, you may want to send back the result to the page. i will do this in the same way by postmessage.
as now i have to communicate between each other, i will change the fucnction sync into this way
// use messagechannel to communicate
sendMessageToSw (msg) {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
// Create a Message Channel
const msg_chan = new MessageChannel()
// Handler for recieving message reply from service worker
msg_chan.port1.onmessage = event => {
if(event.data.error) {
reject(event.data.error)
} else {
resolve(event.data)
}
}
navigator.serviceWorker.controller.postMessage(msg, [msg_chan.port2])
})
}
// send message to serviceWorker
// you can see that i add a parse argument
// this is use to tell the serviceworker how to parse our data
function sync (url, options, parse) {
return sendMessageToSw({type: 'sync', url, options, parse})
}
i also have to change the message event, so that i can pass the port to sync event
self.addEventListener('message', event => {
if(isObject(event.data)) {
if(event.data.type === 'sync') {
// in this way, you can decide your tag
const id = event.data.id || uuid()
// pass the port into the memory stor
syncStore[id] = Object.assign({port: event.ports[0]}, event.data)
self.registration.sync.register(id)
}
}
})
up to now, we can handle the sync event
self.addEventListener('sync', event => {
const {url, options, port, parse} = syncStore[event.tag] || {}
// delete the memory
delete syncStore[event.tag]
event.waitUntil(fetch(url, options)
.then(response => {
// clone response because it will fail to parse if it parse again
const copy = response.clone()
if(response.ok) {
// parse it as you like
copy[parse]()
.then(data => {
// when success postmessage back
port.postMessage(data)
})
} else {
port.postMessage({error: response.status})
}
})
.catch(error => {
port.postMessage({error: error.message})
})
)
})
At the end. you cannot use postmessage to send response directly.Because it's illegal.So you need to parse it, such as text, json, blob, etc. i think that's enough.
As you have mention that, you may want to open the window.
i advice that you can use serviceworker to send a notification.
self.addEventListener('push', function (event) {
const title = 'i am a fucking test'
const options = {
body: 'Yay it works.',
}
event.waitUntil(self.registration.showNotification(title, options))
})
self.addEventListener('notificationclick', function (event) {
event.notification.close()
event.waitUntil(
clients.openWindow('https://yoursite.com')
)
})
when the client click we can open the window.
To comunicate with the serviceworker I use a trick:
in the fetch eventlistener I put this:
self.addEventListener('fetch', event => {
if (event.request.url.includes("sw_messages.js")) {
var zib = "some data";
event.respondWith(new Response("window.msg=" + JSON.stringify(zib) + ";", {
headers: {
'Content-Type': 'application/javascript'
}
}));
}
return;
});
then, in the main html I just add:
<script src="sw_messages.js"></script>
as the page loads, global variable msg will contain (in this example) "some data".
i am trying to accomplish a two way communication request response in my firefox sidebar extension, i have a file named event.js this resides on the content side, i have another file called sidebar.js file which is residing in the xul. I am able to communicate from event.js to sidebar.js file using the dispatchEvent method. my event in turn raises a XMLHttpRequest in sidebar.js file which hits the server and sends back the response. Now, here i am unable to pass the response to the event.js file. I want the response to be accessed in the event.js file. Till now i have achieved only one way communication. Please help me in getting the two way communication.
Code is as follows:
// event.js file
// This event occurs on blur of the text box where i need to save the text into the server
function saveEvent() {
var element = document.getElementById("fetchData");
element.setAttribute("urlPath", "http://localhost:8080/event?Id=12");
element.setAttribute("jsonObj", convertToList);
element.setAttribute("methodType", "POST");
document.documentElement.appendChild(element);
var evt = document.createEvent("Events");
evt.initEvent("saveEvent", true, true);
element.dispatchEvent(evt);
//Fetching the response over here by adding the listener
document.addEventListener("dispatchedResponse", function (e) { MyExtension.responseListener(e); }, false, true);
}
var MyExtension = {
responseListener: function (evt) {
receivedResponse(evt.target.getAttribute("responseObject"));
}
}
function receivedResponse(event) {
alert('response: ' + event);
}
// sidebar.js file
window.addEventListener("load", function (event) {
var saveAjaxRequest = function (urlPath, jsonObj, methodType, evtTarget) {
var url = urlPath;
var request = Components.classes["#mozilla.org/xmlextras/xmlhttprequest;1"].createInstance(Components.interfaces.nsIXMLHttpRequest);
request.onload = function (aEvent) {
window.alert("Response Text: " + aEvent.target.responseText);
saveResponse = aEvent.target.responseText;
//here i am again trying to dispatch the response i got from the server back to the origin, but unable to pass it...
evtTarget.setAttribute("responseObject", saveResponse);
document.documentElement.appendChild(evtTarget);
var evt = document.createEvent("dispatchedRes"); // Error line "Operation is not supported" code: "9"
evt.initEvent("dispatchedResponse", true, false);
evtTarget.dispatchEvent(evt);
};
request.onerror = function (aEvent) {
window.alert("Error Status: " + aEvent.target.status);
};
//window.alert(methodType + " " + url);
request.open(methodType, url, true);
request.send(jsonObj);
};
this.onLoad = function () {
document.addEventListener("saveEvent", function (e) { MyExtension.saveListener(e); }, false, true);
}
var MyExtension =
{
saveListener: function (evt) {
saveAjaxRequest(evt.target.getAttribute("urlPath"), evt.target.getAttribute("jsonObj"), evt.target.getAttribute("methodType"), evt.originalTarget);
}
};
});
Why are you moving your fetchData element into the sidebar document? You should leave it where it is, otherwise your content code won't be able to receive the event. Also, use the content document to create the event. Finally, document.createEvent() parameter for custom events should be "Events". So the code after your //here i am again trying comment should look like:
evtTarget.setAttribute("responseObject", saveResponse);
var evt = evtTarget.ownerDocument.createEvent("Events");
evt.initEvent("dispatchedResponse", true, false);
evtTarget.dispatchEvent(evt);
Please note however that your code as you show it here is a huge security vulnerability - it allows any website to make any HTTP requests and get the result back, so it essentially disables same-origin policy. At the very least you need to check that the website talking to you is allowed to do it (e.g. it belongs to your server). But even then it stays a security risk because server response could be altered (e.g. by an attacker on a public WLAN) or your server could be hacked - and you would be giving an attacker access to sensitive data (for example he could trigger a request to mail.google.com and if the victim happens to be logged in he will be able to read all email data). So please make this less generic, only allow requests to some websites.