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.
I posted the following Feature Request to the azure-sdk, but not sure if that was the correct place for getting a response, so reposting here.
https://github.com/Azure/azure-sdk-for-net/issues/20764
When processing a document against a custom trained model, when a value is present but not able to be translated (such as a signature), would it be possible to include something in the response to identify it as having a value though it wasn't able to be processed?
The specific use case is that our client needs to know that a document was signed by the parties involved. Without this feature, someone will be required to manually review thousands of document images per week to verify that they have been signed. In testing we have found that very few signatures are being translated any way, so the string response is coming back as null.
Thank you,
Rich
For Form Recognizer when a value is not detected although it is present it will be extracted as Null as Form Recognizer is not aware that a value exists it did not detect it. In case of signature this is usually due to the signature being unreadable and just a scribble.
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'm trying to create Ext objects with "Ext.create" the Extjs version i'm using is 4.0.7 (updating would cause a lot of work i'm trying to avoid because the (css) skins for ie would need to be regenerated and tested).
Somehow everytime i try to create an Object of a specific type i.e. Ext.store.JsonStore with
Ext.create('Ext.data.JsonStore', {...config here...});
i get back an object of the type Ext.class.newClass without an error beeing thrown.
Does anyone know what can generally cause this problem? Or is this just the usual case and there will be no objects returned of the given type? I know that this is very little information but unfortuantelly even after a lot of research on the web and in the sourcode this is everything i have.
Assume, I have a form ...lets say WinForm... with 'n' number of controls.
I populate them with a default value during the LOAD. Then, the user gets to play with all the controls and set different values for the controls and submit the form. Here is where I find myself writing a series of "if" conditional statements handling the value of each of the controls for (but not restricted to) avoiding nulls, doing validation etc.
Though it works, is there some other more efficient way of doing this instead of disparate "ifs" ?
You may not avoid the 'ifs' entirely, but sometimes it helps to gather related bunch of controls on your Form into User Controls. Then you can move the validation and all from the Form class into individual User Controls, thus reducing clutter.
You should know that WinForms has build in facilities for both validation and data binding. Using these built-in capabilities will definitely result in code that is better structured and easier to write and maintain than hand coding data and validation operations. Beth Massi has done a series of videos that demonstrates these features, you can find them on the MSDN web site.
** Edited **
I don't have a catch-all, as this will vary from form to form, but some general advice.
By the way, I love this question because it's all about keeping your code clean, readable, and doing things as simply as possible.
Use the included validation controls when possible rather than writing if statements to validate code. (see instruction video for winforms (based on the question I'm assuming you mean .Net winforms.) here)
Always look to see if you can write a function to handle repetitive tasks. It takes a line of code to call a function, and if your function is only fivelines long, but you call it tentimes, that means you've saved yourself a lot of duplicate lines of code.
If you can write that function to be smart enough and be able to loop through your controls, so much the better.
In short, look at your code and determine to try to do the job with the least amount of code possible while making it easily readable and understandable, and without resorting to bad practices. Experiment in your spare time on non-production "test" code to refine your technique as you learn, but if you get used to thinking about clean code you get better at writing it.
Create a set of Validators to match 1-for-1 with your controls. Derive from the base Validator a ControlXValidator, which take a ControlX as its constructor, and implements isValid() in the special way that ControlX must evaluate as valid, and implements getDiagnosticMessage to display an appropriate message if the validation fails. Then at the end of your form construction code, create a list of Validators containing the Validator subclass for each control.
Then your validateForm() method can just do something like:
allvalid = True;
foreach(Validator vtor in allValidators)
{
if (!vtor.isValid())
{
StatusBar.Caption = vtor.getDiagnosticMessage();
allvalid = False;
break;
}
}
If you are validating by data-type (dates should look like dates), you could use a function that validates your data and pass the function both the user input and a "sample" of valid data. Valid samples could be stored in an array, keyed by the data-type.
And if the data is not valid, the function returns false and you have one if statement that says "if function returns false, punch the user".
Assume a decently strong language:
Create a hash (a.k.a Map) with the keys as the control identities and the values as functions. Retrieve the function and call.
restrict your control.....life in text box you can set limit of inputr chars ...etc....
not specific to any language: use Guard Clauses is usually a good way to get rid ifs. It is a excellent way to check nulls and validations.