$id The key where this record is stored. The same as obj.$ref().key
To get the id of an item in a $firebaseArray within ng-repeat, call $id on that item.
These two are from the angular fire reference:
https://github.com/firebase/angularfire/blob/master/docs/reference.md
What I understand is if there is firebase object created with :
var object = $firebaseObject(objectRef);
then I can use uid always.
uid : object.uid
But I saw examples where the firebase auth user is used with $id.
return Auth.$requireSignIn().then(function (firebaseUser) {
return Users.getProfile(firebaseUser.uid).$loaded().then(function (profile) {
**profile.uid or profile.$id here**
Also is it possible the object to have uid but not to have $id (obj.$ref().key). Aren't they the same thing? Does the object have to be loaded first with $loaded() to use $id or uid?
Regards
You seem to be confusing two concepts:
the object.$id of an AngularFire object contains the key of that object in the Firebase Database.
a firebaseUser.uid in Firebase terms is the identification of a Firebase Authentication user.
It is common to store your Firebase Authentication users in the database under their uid, in which case user.$id would be their uid. But they are still inherently different things.
Users
uid1
displayName: "makkasi"
uid2
displayName: "Frank van Puffelen"
So if you we look at the code snippet you shared:
return Auth.$requireSignIn().then(function (firebaseUser) {
return Users.getProfile(firebaseUser.uid).$loaded().then(function (profile) {
The first line requires that the user is signed-in; only then will it execute the next line with the firebaseUser that was signed in. This is a regular JavaScript object (firebase.User), not an AngularFire $firebaseObject.
The second line then uses the firebaseUser.uid property (the identification of that user) to load the user's profile from the database into an AngularFire $firebaseObject. Once that profile is loaded, it executes the third line.
If the users are stored in the database under their uid, at this stage profile.$id and firebaseUser.uid will be the same value.
Related
I am attempting to programmatically retrieve a list of users (principalType = "User") and their associated appRoleId values for an enterprise app using itsresourceId value from Azure AD. There is a total of ten Users with a combined total of twenty appRoleId values associated with the app. However, when I run my query I receive data for just two users and a combined total of four appRoleId values.
Here's my C# code:
GraphServiceClient myGraphClient = GetGraphServiceClient([scopes]);
// Retrieve the [Id] value for the app. Note [Id] is a pseudonym for the [resourceId] required to retrieve users and app roles assigned.
var servPrinPage = await myGraphClient.ServicePrincipals.Request()
.Select("id,appRoles")
.Filter($"startswith(displayName, 'Display Name')")
.GetAsync()
.ConfigureAwait(false);
// Using the first [Id] value from the [ServicePrincipals] page, retrieve the list of users and their assigned roles for the app.
var appRoleAssignedTo = await myGraphClient.ServicePrincipals[servPrinPage[0].Id].AppRoleAssignedTo.Request().GetAsync().ConfigureAwait(false);
The query returns a ServicePrincipalAppRoleAssignedToCollectionPage (as expected) but the collection only contains four pages (one per User/appRoleId combination).
As an aside, the following query in Microsoft Graph Explorer produces an equivalent result:
https://graph.microsoft.com/v1.0/servicePrincipals/[resourceId]/appRoleAssignedTo
What am I missing here? I need to be able to retrieve the complete list of users and assigned app roles. Any assistance is greatly appreciated.
The issue I was confronting has to do with the pagination feature employed by Azure AD and MS Graph. In a nutshell, I was forced to submit two queries in order to retrieve all twenty records I was expecting.
If you have a larger set of records to be retrieved you may be faced with submitting a much larger number of successive queries. The successive queries are managed using a "skiptoken" passed as a request header each time your query is resubmitted.
Here is my revised code with notation....
// Step #1: Create a class in order to strongly type the <List> which will hold your results.
// Not absolutely necessary but always a good idea when working with <Lists> in C#.
private class AppRoleByUser
{
public string AzureDisplayName;
public string PrincipalDisplayName;
}
// Step #2: Submit a query to acquire the [id] for the Service Principal (i.e. your app).
// Note the [ServicePrincipals].[id] property is synonymous with the [resourceId] needed to
// retrieve [AppRoleAssignedTo] values from Microsoft Graph in the next step.
// Initialize the Microsoft Graph Client.
GraphServiceClient myGraphClient = GetGraphServiceClient("Directory.Read.All");
// Retrieve the Service Principals page containing the app [Id].
var servPrinPage = await myGraphClient.ServicePrincipals.Request().Select("id,appRoles").Filter($"startswith(displayName, 'Your App Name')").GetAsync().ConfigureAwait(false);
// Store the app [Id] in a local variable (for readability).
string resourceId = servPrinPage[0].Id;
// Step #3: Using the [Id]/[ResourceId] value from the previous step, retrieve a list of AppRoleId/DisplayName pairs for your app.
// Results of the successive queries are typed against the class created earlier and are appended to the <List>.
List<AppRoleByUser> appRoleByUser = new List<AppRoleByUser>();
// Note, unlike "Filter" or "Search" parameters, it is not possible to
// add a "Skiptoken" parameter directly to your query in C#.
// Instead, it is necessary to insert the "skiptoken" as request header using the Graph QueryOption class.
// Note the QueryOption List is passed as an empty object on the first pass of the while loop.
var queryOptions = new List<QueryOption>();
// Initialize the variable to hold the anticipated query result.
ServicePrincipalAppRoleAssignedToCollectionPage appRoleAssignedTo = new ServicePrincipalAppRoleAssignedToCollectionPage();
// Note the number of user/role combinations associated with an app is not always known.
// Consequently, you may be faced with the need to acquire multiple pages
// (and submit multiple consecutive queries) in order to obtain a complete
// listing of user/role combinations.
// The "while" loop construct will be utilized to manage query iteration.
// Execution of the "while" loop will be stopped when the "bRepeat" variable is set to false.
bool bRepeat = true;
while (bRepeat == true)
{
appRoleAssignedTo = (ServicePrincipalAppRoleAssignedToCollectionPage) await myGraphClient.ServicePrincipals[resourceId].AppRoleAssignedTo.Request(queryOptions).GetAsync().ConfigureAwait(false);
foreach (AppRoleAssignment myPage in appRoleAssignedTo)
{
// I was not able to find a definitive answer in any of the documents I
// found but it appears the final record in the recordset carries a
// [PrincipalType] = "Group" (all others carry a [PrincipalType] = "User").
if (myPage.PrincipalType != "Group")
{
// Insert "User" data into the List<AppRoleByUser> collection.
appRoleByUser.Add(new AppRoleByUser{ AzureDisplayName = myPage.PrincipalDisplayName, AzureUserRole = myPage.AppRoleId.ToString() });
}
else
{
// The "bRepeat" variable is initially set to true and is set to
// false when the "Group" record is detected thus signaling
// task completion and closing execution of the "while" loop.
bRepeat = false;
}
}
// Acquire the "nextLink" string from the response header.
// The "nextLink" string contains the "skiptoken" string required for the next
// iteration of the query.
string nextLinkValue = appRoleAssignedTo.AdditionalData["#odata.nextLink"].ToString();
// Parse the "skiptoken" value from the response header.
string skipToken = nextLinkValue.Substring(nextLinkValue.IndexOf("=") + 1);
// Include the "skiptoken" as a request header in the next iteration of the query.
queryOptions = new List<QueryOption>()
{
new QueryOption("$skiptoken", skipToken)
};
}
That's a long answer to what should have been a simple question. I am relatively new to Microsoft Graph but it appears to me Microsoft has a long way to go in making this API developer-friendly. All I needed was to know the combination of AppRoles and Users associated with a single, given Azure AD app. One query and one response should have been more than sufficient.
At any rate, I hope my toil might help save time for someone else going forward.
Could you please remove "Filter" from the code and retry the operation. Let us know if that worked.
I'm a bit confused about firebase rules. This is my realtime database. Each node inside "1" is created using the firebase unique id of the user. And in the user's node there is a list of objects.
The objective is for the user to be able to create this node if it doesn't exist, and allow the user to read/write only inside this node.
I tried this but it doesn't work. I get permission error.
{
"rules": {
"1": {
"$key": {
".read": "auth != null && auth.uid == $key",
".write": "auth != null && auth.uid == $key"
}
}
}
}
Note: In the future there will be other parent nodes ("2","3" etc) So it is important to keep the "1". Also in case it matters I am using firebase anonymous sign in.
I appreciate the help.
UPDATE:
I retrieve the installationId like this:
Task<String> getIdTask = FirebaseInstallations.getInstance().getId()
and access the database like this:
FirebaseDatabase.getInstance()
.getReference()
.child("1")
.child(installationId)
Trying to access the database using above code gives this:
Listen at /1/cKYZwWrlRmSof79rtfuX82 failed: DatabaseError: Permission denied
SOLUTION:
I just realized the magnitude of my mistake. To retrieve the userId I was using
FirebaseInstallations.getInstance().getId()
instead of this which is what firebase sees as userId:
FirebaseAuth.getInstance().getCurrentUser().getUid();
Using the later one solved the issue.
Unless you'd add another node, that actually links the UID with your user ID, how shall it know about it? I'd suggest to reconsider the structure and get rid of that superfluous node altogether; just use the UID. It's not that it wouldn't be possible, to lookup values by UID ... but it might be an unfortunate database design, which ignores the given environment.
I'm setting up an action on google project which uses the OAuth & Google Sign In Linking Type.
Previously, I was using the userId that was sent in every request to look up the user in the database to see if there were accesstokens and refreshtokens available. But since userId is deprecated, I am looking for an alternative.
The user starts his/her dialog and then bumps into this piece of code:
app.intent('Give Color', async (conv, { color }) => {
conv.data[Fields.COLOR] = color;
if (conv.user.ref) {
await conv.user.ref.set({ [Fields.COLOR]: color });
conv.close(`I got ${color} as your favorite color.`);
return conv.close('Since you are signed in, I\'ll remember it next time.');
}
return conv.ask(new SignIn(`To save ${color} as your favorite color for next time`));
});
The "To continue, link Test App to your Google Account" on which the user selects the correct Google account.Then my /token endpoint is called on the OAuth server containing the Google ID Token (assertion) which holds all of the users data. I decode it, check in the database if the "sub" is already present, and I throw the following exception:
return res.status(401).send({ error: 'user_not_found' });
Then the normal OAuth procedure kicks in, where I deliver a token to Google. Sidenote: this is my own OAuth Server written in NodeJS. I am sure that the access- and refreshtoken are delivered to Google.
After token delivery, I get a new request on my action:
app.intent('Get Sign In', async (conv, params, signin) => {
if (signin.status !== 'OK') {
return conv.close('Let\'s try again next time.');
}
const color = conv.data[Fields.COLOR];
await conv.user.ref.set({ [Fields.COLOR]: color });
return conv.close(`I saved ${color} as your favorite color. `
+ 'Since you are signed in, I\'ll remember it next time.');
});
The signin.status has a value of "OK". But shouldn't the conv.user object contain the Google ID Token so that I can store the access- and refreshtoken along with this "sub" from the Google ID Token in my database? Or am I getting something wrong?
The content of the conv.user looks like this:
User {raw: Object, storage: Object, _id: undefined, locale: "en-BE", verification: "VERIFIED", …}
_id: undefined
[[StableObjectId]]: 7
access: Access {token: "ACCT-ATlbRmcpMI545WJFssRSlK1Jcza46NIB"}
entitlements: Array(0) []
id: undefined
last: Last {seen: Thu Aug 08 2019 10:53:17 GMT+0200 (Central Europea…}
locale: "en-BE"
name: Name {display: undefined, family: undefined, given: undefined}
permissions: Array(0) []
profile: Profile {token: undefined}
raw: Object {accessToken: "ACCT-ATlbRmcpMI545WJFssRSlK1Jcza46NIB", locale: "en-BE", lastSeen: "2019-08-08T08:53:17Z", …}
storage: Object {}
verification: "VERIFIED"
__proto__: Object {constructor: , _serialize: , _verifyProfile: , …}
conv.user.id is *DEPRECATED*: Use conv.user.storage to store data instead
It won't contain the Google ID of the user, because the user hasn't authorized that.
What they have authorized is whatever you've asked them to authorize via your OAuth server.
So you'll see the access token that your server has sent to the Assistant in conv.user.access, and you can then use this token to lookup who the user is in your database and take action accordingly.
If you specifically want their Google ID, you'll need to make sure that they use Google Sign-In on the same project as your Action (either through voice, a mobile app, or a webapp).
If you just need an ID so you can see when this user returns later, you can use the Google ID you get from Google Sign-In, or just generate an ID and store this in conv.user.storage.
Since I just want to have an ID, I will be using this:
If you just need an ID so you can see when this user returns later, you can use the Google ID you get from Google Sign-In, or just generate an ID and store this in conv.user.storage.
Thanks!
I am reviewing the sample code for the HFC SDK and saw ways to manage users.
To enroll an existing user the following function is used:
chain.enroll
To register and enroll a new user the following function is used:
chain.registerAndEnroll
However, the sample code did not provide an example for a register only function:
chain.register
If I understand it correctly both the chain.enroll and chain.registerAndEnroll will both save the user key/certificate in the machine where the functions are called.
If I want an admin to create a new user (e.g., userA), I cannot use the chain.registerAndEnroll function since the key/certificate will be saved in the admin's machine instead of userA's machine since the function performs not only a register but also an enroll. Hence, my need for a register only function.
In addition, how do I add attributes to users using HFC similar to the attributes that can be defined in membersrvc.yaml?
Unfortunately I was unable to find an online link to the hfc API doc (although you can build the doc locally if needed).
That being said, there is a chain.register function which takes a RegistrationRequest object and then returns the enroll secret/password you would later use to enroll the new user:
//create some attributes
var attributes = [{name:'foo',value:'bar'}];
var registrationRequest = {
roles: [ role ],
enrollmentID: name,
affiliation: "bank_a",
attributes: attributes,
registrar: registrar
};
chain.register(registrationRequest, function(err, enrollmentPassword) {
//your code here
}
In my main page I have a list of users and i'd like to choose and open a channel to chat with one of them.
I am thinking if use the id is the best way and control an access of a channel like USERID1-USERID2.
But of course, user 2 can open the same channel too, so I'd like to find something more easy to control.
Please, if you want to help me, give me an example in javascript using a firebase url/array.
Thank you!
A common way to handle such 1:1 chat rooms is to generate the room URL based on the user ids. As you already mention, a problem with this is that either user can initiate the chat and in both cases they should end up in the same room.
You can solve this by ordering the user ids lexicographically in the compound key. For example with user names, instead of ids:
var user1 = "Frank"; // UID of user 1
var user2 = "Eusthace"; // UID of user 2
var roomName = 'chat_'+(user1<user2 ? user1+'_'+user2 : user2+'_'+user1);
console.log(user1+', '+user2+' => '+ roomName);
user1 = "Eusthace";
user2 = "Frank";
var roomName = 'chat_'+(user1<user2 ? user1+'_'+user2 : user2+'_'+user1);
console.log(user1+', '+user2+' => '+ roomName);
<script src="https://getfirebug.com/firebug-lite-debug.js"></script>
A common follow-up questions seems to be how to show a list of chat rooms for the current user. The above code does not address that. As is common in NoSQL databases, you need to augment your data model to allow this use-case. If you want to show a list of chat rooms for the current user, you should model your data to allow that. The easiest way to do this is to add a list of chat rooms for each user to the data model:
"userChatrooms" : {
"Frank" : {
"Eusthace_Frank": true
},
"Eusthace" : {
"Eusthace_Frank": true
}
}
If you're worried about the length of the keys, you can consider using a hash codes of the combined UIDs instead of the full UIDs.
This last JSON structure above then also helps to secure access to the room, as you can write your security rules to only allow users access for whom the room is listed under their userChatrooms node:
{
"rules": {
"chatrooms": {
"$chatroomid": {
".read": "
root.child('userChatrooms').child(auth.uid).child(chatroomid).exists()
"
}
}
}
}
In a typical database schema each Channel / ChatGroup has its own node with unique $key (created by Firebase). It shouldn't matter which user opened the channel first but once the node (& corresponding $key) is created, you can just use that as channel id.
Hashing / MD5 strategy of course is other way to do it but then you also have to store that "route" info as well as $key on the same node - which is duplication IMO (unless Im missing something).
We decided on hashing users uid's, which means you can look up any existing conversation,if you know the other persons uid.
Each conversation also stores a list of the uids for their security rules, so even if you can guess the hash, you are protected.
Hashing with js-sha256 module worked for me with directions of Frank van Puffelen and Eduard.
import SHA256 from 'crypto-js/sha256'
let agentId = 312
let userId = 567
let chatHash = SHA256('agent:' + agentId + '_user:' + userId)