I don't know if it's an appropriate place to ask this question, hope it is.
I'm looking for a way to uniquely identify a mobile operator in the world. I'm aware of the MCC/MNC tuple, unfortunately big mobile operators might have more than one MNC.
I found an identifier called TADIG(or sometimes PLMN CODE), but unfortunately GSMA standard says that there is one to one mapping between MCC/MNC tuple to TADIG identifier and again it means that one mobile operator might have more than one TADIG(of course I checked and found that it's not unique).
String comparison between mobile operator names doesn't seem like a good solution, there are different naming conventions around the internet for the same operator.
Does anyone know of any unique id that mobile operators might have?
Thanks.
The probable solution is if the MNOs (mobile carriers) publish their ip block publicly, then we can try to group them by ips and map them to MNOs. But problem is
Its not publicly available
It tends to change every now and
then and MNOs don't really care about updating them.
I tried using combination of ASN, ipslash24, MCC-MNC but they weren't really useful. Let me know if you find anything.
Related
I'm getting an error when uploading my customized policy, which is based on Microsoft's SocialAccounts example ([tenant] is a placeholder I added):
Policy "B2C_1A_TrustFrameworkExtensions" of tenant "[tenant].onmicrosoft.com" makes a reference to ClaimType with id "client_id" but neither the policy nor any of its base policies contain such an element
I've done some customization to the file, including adding local account signon, but comparing copies of TrustFrameworkExtensions.xml in the examples, I can't see where this element is defined. It is not defined in TrustFrameworkBase.xml, which is where I would expect it.
I figured it out, although it doesn't make sense to me. Hopefully this helps someone else running into the same issue.
The TrustFrameworkBase.xml is not the same in each scenario. When Microsoft documentation said not to modify it, I assumed that meant the "base" was always the same. The implication of this design is: If you try to mix and match between scenarios then you also need to find the supporting pieces in the TrustFrameworkBase.xml and move them into your extensions document. It also means if Microsoft does provide an update to their reference policies and you want to update, you need to remember which one you implemented originally and potentially which other ones you had to pull from or do line-by-line comparison. Not end of the world, but also not how I'd design an inheritance structure.
This also explains why I had to work through previous validation errors, including missing <DisplayName> and <Protocol> elements in the <TechnicalProfile> element.
Yes - I agree that is a problem.
My suggestion is always to use the "SocialAndLocalAccountsWithMfa" scenario as the sample.
That way you will always have the correct attributes and you know which one to use if there is an update.
It's easy enough to comment out the MFA stuff in the user journeys if you don't want it.
There is one exception. If you want to use "username" instead of "email", the reads/writes etc. are only in the username sample.
We have a need for "Blending of hits from different sources", as per your documentation it is recommended to write a custom-searcher in JAVA. Is there a demo of this written somewhere on Github ? I wouldn't even know where to start :( I understand I can create search "chains" , preferably Asynchronous, and then blend results in JAVA before returning them...but then how would I handle paginations, limits...etc ? This all seems very complicated, for someone who doesn't even know JAVA that much. So, I am hoping someone has already written a demo for this ? Please ? Anyone ?
Thank you so much
EDIT to make my quesion clearer:
We are writing a search engine that fetches data from various websites. Some websites have 10mil indexable items, other websites only 100,000. When we present the results to end user, we want to include results from all our sources ( when match applies ). Let's say 10 results from each of the websites we crawl, so that they all get equal amount of attention on page. If we don't do custom blending, what happens is that the largest website with most items wins all our traffic.
I understand that we can send 10 separate queries to VESPA, and blend the results in our front end, but that seems very inefficient. Thus, the quesion of "Custome Searcher". Thank you so much !
That documentation covers some very advanced use cases which you do not have. Are your sources different Vespa schemas or content clusters? If so Vespa will by default blend the hits returned from each according to their relevance scores so there's nothing you need to do.
The two other most common use-cases are:
Some (or all) the data sources are external, so you need to write a Searcher component to fetch the external data and turn it into a Result.
You want the data to be blended in some custom way (rather than by relevance score). If so you need to exclude the default blending Searcher (com.yahoo.prelude.searcher.BlendingSearcher) and write your own.
If you provide some more information about your use cases I can give you some code examples.
EDIT: Use grouping to solve the need explained under "EDIT" in the question:
Create a "siteid" field when feeding (e.g in document processing).
Use the grouping expression all(group(siteid) each(max(10) output(summary())))
See http://docs.vespa.ai/documentation/grouping.html
Firstly, I know about the duplicates. We're not talking about iOs/Android/KindOfDevice-only, as the others & cookies are not the way I want to go.
So I want to bypass the need of a password or something by "binding" my service (which is only an idea by now) to the device used.
An E-Mail and stuff would be needed of course, to keep your devices bundled.
What would your approaches be?
My thoughts so far
My first idea was using the mac-adress, because I heard that they're unique. But a quick google told me that's not really true.
On Phones I could use the phone number or the IMEI, but I don't want it to be restricted to phones, it should be usable by web, too.
I guess when we talk about a web-solution, stuff would get even more tricky because browsers won't let the service go really deep into the system and stuff?
Of course I guess there needs to be a combination of two or more things. So two not-so-unique things combine to an 99%-unique-thing?
I just need some help about how to go on with this problem, a direction, because if you google terms like "unique device identification" you only get this medicine-thing..
In my project I use
var secureUDID = (UIDevice.current.identifierForVendor?.uuidString)!
which - Returns a string created from the UUID, such as “E621E1F8-C36C-495A-93FC-0C247A3E6E5F”.
UUID - An alphanumeric string that uniquely identifies a device to the app’s vendor.
I'm hoping somebody can help me.
I have added nine term reference fields, one for each of my vocabularies, to the Create New User page. What I want is to only allow one term to be selected from all nine term reference fields.
I realise that one way of doing this would be to combine the nine vocabularies into one and then choose to only allow the selection of one term. However, I would much prefer to keep my vocabularies separate.
I had a look at the Rules module but couldn't see an Action to fail the validation of a new user, even if I could test for empty fields etc.
I also had a look at the Conditional Fields module but again couldn't see a way to fail the validation.
Any help or pointers would be most gratefully received.
Many thanks,
Matt
I have managed to achieve what I wanted after discovering the excellent Rules Forms Support module. I ran into a bit of difficulty because there is no condition to check whether a form element is empty, only to compare it to a value. To overcome this I included the term 'None' to each vocabulary, set it as the default value and chose the field to be required. I was then able to set the condition to compare against this (tid) and it worked!
Hopefully this may be of help to someone someday.
Happy Drupaling to you,
Matt
I have rough ideas - like dealing with singular/plural, two or more words/phrases that mean the same thing, misspellings, etc. But I'm not sure of any patterns or rules of thumb for dealing with these, either programatically and automatically or by presenting them to administrators or even users to clean up.
Any thoughts or suggestions?
You should have a policy for the format of the tags (e.g. tags should be singular). Depending on how diverse the tags are, it might be useful not only to auto-complete while you are typing in a tag, but also to suggest similar tags, so that it is easy for people to use the tag system. Additionally, a cleanup process could correct common spelling mistakes and substitue deprecated tags according to a translation table.
As SO does, suggesting existing tags as you type is a very good thing.
It will (hopefully, almost) take care of the plural / singular thing and misspellings, as people will re-use existing tags much more.
Use an ajax-driven suggestion form, like StackOverflow :)
Assuming a setup not dissimiliar to SO: how about moderators being allowed to merge a smaller voted tag into a more common one, e.g. VS9 could be merged into VisualStudio2008 but not letting the larger used tag to be merged into a smaller tag grouping. Adding a badge incentive or similiar to this.