is it possible forcing to see a specific test-variant in the browser/preview?
I have AB Test and it's already running. Now I want to see only variant A or variant B - how can I force the specific variant? Maybe with some URL parameters.
You can modify the last digit in the _gaexp cookie, using the browser dev tools, to force a specific variant.
https://support.google.com/optimize/thread/16756967?hl=en&msgid=16794463
Related
I need a way to extract the Salesforce record ID from a URL using Zapier Push. How can I find the first 3 characters in a string that match the start of the Id like 006 and then return a set number of characters after that?
The url is formatted as such:
https://useindio.lightning.force.com/lightning/r/Opportunity/006f400000AiVufAAF/view
David here, from the Zapier Platform team. Good question!
Whenever you want to extract data from a string and you know the exact format the string will be in, Regular Expressions are the answer.
Assuming you want to grab anything after 006 (and you know it'll always be there), you could use the regex 006(\w{15}) (more info), which will find the 15 characters after that. If you know the surrounding url will always be the same, you could easily grab the whole ID by anchoring via Opportunity and view: \/Opportunity\/(.*)\/view (more info).
Either way, there's info about setting up a formatter zap here, or you could do it in code (JS Example, Python Example).
Let me know if you've got any other questions!
I discovered a use case for matching Request urls using an expression that ignores part of a url path (path not ignoreSearch).
The use case is for an image processing service used in a responsive design where the dimensions of the image are encoded in the url path. This is sort of common among these kinds of services (Cloudinary, Firesize, even Lorempixel).
I noticed every once in a while, one of the dimension components will request will be off by one pixel. The required dimensions are calculated from the client - source of the error is rounding here - But the service worker cache could be an elegant solution for this variation.
However, this rounding problem results in a cache miss because I can't specify that part of the url path can be ignored.
Will url expression matching ever become part of the spec?
In general, is it ok that the 'fetch with url A, cache put/match with url B' pattern grow?
I get that the work around for this is the same as the current work around for ignoreSearch (until its implementation), wherein you fetch with one url but cache with another. I'm just wondering if url path expression matching will ever become part of the spec, or if an url expression matching use case has been considered. I don't see any evidence of this in the authoritative spec.
Thanks in advance for any words of insight.
It might be considered at some point in the future if it becomes a dominant pattern in many applications. Usually if something is fairly common it'll eventually be included in the standard so it can be made faster and more reliable. I wouldn't count on it happening anytime soon though and without many libraries having support for it.
I've seen a number of QR codes that contain a URL but also have extra some text after it. Something like:
http://www.example.com Thanks for scanning this QR code!
I've experimented with using a number of different delimiting methods (several spaces, a question mark, two dashes, one or two returns) and all work to varying degrees on various scanning programs.
Some respect the space character, others respect the return. Some think the URL isn't a URL at all when I use a return. Long story short, it's all over the map how the various scanning programs (NeoReader, iNigma, Qrafter, Beetag, OptiScan, etc.) treat characters after a URL.
Is there any consensus on weather (a)this is even a good idea or not and (b)if so, what is the 'correct' (best practice) way to do it? (I know I should go read the RFC for the exact definition of a URL but since the reader programs are all over the map, I suspect they didn't read it either.)
You can make it work by converting the text message into valid URL, while trying to keep readability.
In your case it can be:
http://www.example.com?Thanks_for_scanning_this_QR_code
It's not perfect, but it can help on web analytics side to distinguish all QR code users.
Spaces are definitely not part of a URL, so, in that sense a space definitely should delimit the end of a URL.
The entire string is not a URL, taken as a whole of course. So yes it's asking for trouble.
As you've found, the empirical answer is that not every reader does what you want. Barcode Scanner for instance understands the split here, but does not prompt the user to launch the browser since the payload isn't a URL per se.
So: it's a bad idea.
I maintain a 3rd party Informix driver that's written with ESQL-style (Informix API) calls. I'm working on a bug where, for TEXT fields, INSERTs work fine and UPDATEs fail. Stepping through the code, what I've found is that we're checking our sqlda structure to tell us whether and how to bind, and after the call to sqli_describe_statement, the sqlda.sqld variable contains 2, the correct number of bound parameters for this insert call, and the parameters appear to be set up correctly whereas in the update case, the number returned is 0, with no parameter information (it should be 1, for the one param in: "UPDATE TESTTAB SET COLNAME = ? WHERE OTHERCOLNAME = 1 ").
Using the sqlda information, we correctly set up the required locator structure for the INSERT, but we can't for the update because the information isn't there. If I fake it out in the debugger and run the set-up-the-locator code for the update, it updates fine.
The statement certainly appears correct, and the same variable is being used for the INSERT as the UPDATE bind. Moreover sqli_prep has no problem with the update. For the describe, sqsla.code returns different non-negative numbers 4 and 6, representing the different types of statements being described, as documeneted (i.e., not an error code), so there's no obvious problem there.
Is there something else I should be checking in the code ahead of this that might cause this weird behavior (other than special case handling for the different queries -- nothing there)
Am I missing something fundamental here about how one does UPDATEs on TEXT fields, such as you have to create a locator object, find the row, and click your heels together three times and say "There's no place like IBM?"
So far Google Fu has turned up little in the documentation, but if you know of docs or samples that point the way, that's cool too.
This is one of the murky areas of Informix behaviour. The behaviour of DESCRIBE is supposed to describe output parameters (it is a shorthand for DESCRIBE OUTPUT stmt INTO ...); to describe the input parameters, you would use DESCRIBE INPUT stmt INTO ... instead.
However, for various reasons extending back to the dawn of time (well, 1985, anyway), the INSERT statement got a special case exemption and plain DESCRIBE described its input parameters - unlike UPDATE or DELETE (or, these days, MERGE).
So, your code was probably written before DESCRIBE INPUT and DESCRIBE OUTPUT became feasible (that was circa 2000±3 years). In principle, using the directed DESCRIBE statements should fix the issue. There may be an ONCONFIG parameter to be set to get this behaviour.
I remember being grateful that the feature arrived, but also I remember thinking "Damn, I'm not going to be able to use that for a while - until the old versions without it are all retired". I think that has basically happened now - IDS 7.31 in particular is now obsolete, and so indeed are the IDS 9.x versions, so all available versions of IDS support the feature. OnLine 5.20 - a minority interest - still doesn't and won't ever support it. So, I need to review how to update my programs such as SQLCMD to exploit this. The code there includes what I call 'vignettes'; they're complete little programs that illustrate how to work with BYTE and TEXT blobs. You might find UPDBLOB or APPBLOB, for example, of some use.
I'm working on a large project involving multiple documents typeset in LaTeX. I want to be consistent in my use of symbols, so it might be a nice idea to define a command for every symbol that has a specific meaning throughout the project. Does anyone have any experience with this? Are there issues I should pay attention to?
A little more specific. Say that, throughout the document I would denote something called permability by a script P, would it be an idea to define
\providecommand{\permeability}{\mathscr{P}}
or would this be more like the case "defining a command for $n$"?
A few tips:
Using \providecommand will define that command only if it's not been previously defined. So if you're not getting the results you expected, you may be trying to define a command that's been defined elsewhere.
If you wrap the math in your commands with \ensuremath, it will do the right thing regardless of whether you're in math mode when you issue the command:
\providecommand{\permeability}{\ensuremath{\mathscr{P}}}
Now I can easily use \permeability in text or $\permeability$ in math mode.
Using your own commands allows you to easily change the typographical representation of something later. For instance:
\newcommand{\vect}[1]{\ensuremath{\mathbf{#1}}}
would print \vect{x} as a boldfaced x. If you later decide you prefer arrows above your vectors, you could change the command to:
\newcommand{\vect}[1]{\ensuremath{\vec{#1}}}
I have been doing this for anything that has a specific meaning and is longer than a single symbol, mostly to save typing:
\newcommand{\objId}{\mbox{$\mathit{objId}$}\xspace}
\newcommand{\insOp}[1]{#1\mbox{$^+$}\xspace}
\newcommand{\delOp}[1]{#1\mbox{$^-$}\xspace}
However then I noticed that I stopped making inconsistency errors (objId vs ObjId vs ObjID), so I agree that it is a nice idea.
However I am not sure if it is a good idea in case symbols in the output are, well, single Latin symbols, as in:
\newcommand{\numOfObjs}{$n$}
It is too easy to type a single symbol and forget about it even though a command was defined for it.
EDIT: using your example IMHO it'd be a good idea to define \permeability because it is more than a single P that you have to type in without the command. But it's a close call.