Hi Sanjeewa,
In facebook, if someone posts a comment on our post, then we have the
permission to delete that comment even though that comment was not created
by us.
In a similar manner, shouldn't we at least support delete comment
permission to a moderator role(api owner or a configurable moderat
Hi,
Actually JavaDB do have network drivers [1].
[1] http://db.apache.org/derby/papers/DerbyTut/ns_intro.html
Thanks,
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Uvindra Dias Jayasinha
wrote:
> FYI let me give some details regarding how we are testing the APIM DAO
> layer for C5.
>
> 1. The DAO layer
To add to Uvindra and Darshana's comments.
Trying to run integration test with a specific db will only validate that
our code functions well with that specific db. With the docker image
approach, we can validate our code functions properly with all those
databases.
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 11:35 A
FYI let me give some details regarding how we are testing the APIM DAO
layer for C5.
1. The DAO layer is an interface that the rest of our code interacts with
in order to store and retrieve data. We mock the DOA layer and can control
its behaviour to unit test how the rest of our code behaves when
Hi All,
In MicrosoftDynamicCRM, there is a method to create [1], update, delete
entities and etc. But each entity has different or dynamic set of
parameters [2].
Due to that , Now I'm planning to implement the connector by getting the
entity type and required payload for that specific entity from
Hi All,
The correct approach for unit test is to mock DB layer using Mockito or
Jmockit. Not introduce DB layer. Anyway, you have to write set of
integration test to test actual functionality with actual DB and the actual
end to end use case.
But the correct approach is to mock the DB layer just
Can anyone point me any site/forum which allow you to edit others
comment(not approve/reject or delete entire comment). I'm just curious :)
Think what will happen when someone comment on your blogs, media etc(or
even you can think of product comments of most common e commerce
platforms). It will g
I think standard forums allow privileged users to moderate comments.
Moderation can be in the form of approving/rejecting comments or in the
form of removing obscene type of comments.
If we go down the workflow (approval) path, there's much to implement. Ex:
We need to introduce a "state" to the c
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Sanjeewa Malalgoda
wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Bhathiya Jayasekara
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Sanjeewa,
>>
>> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Sanjeewa Malalgoda
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think its worth to get complete permission model for comments as
I didn't realize there was a version of Derby in the JDK! Yes we should
support it as a real DB now and can we even use it in production?? That
would be awesome as it'll reduce complexity for smaller deployments - just
download and run.
Earlier IIRC Derby didn't have networked drivers and therefor
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Bhathiya Jayasekara
wrote:
> Hi Sanjeewa,
>
> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Sanjeewa Malalgoda
> wrote:
>
>> I don't think its worth to get complete permission model for comments as
>> well. Like bhathiya mentioned only comment owner is allowed to
>> update/d
These APIs are consumed by Apps. Apps don't understand what "Blocked"
means. If an API is blocked, an App will throw an error irrespective of
what the error response is. I'm pretty sure no one writes an App expecting
an API to be blocked.
In that case the only user set to whom this error response
Hi Vidura,
Adding a separate command line would easily lead to more human errors. With
C5, we are trying to minimize the configurations, command line parameters,
etc. to make the users' life easier and to reduce the human errors much as
possible. Log patch is just a one case I highlighted. There a
Hi Sanjeewa,
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Sanjeewa Malalgoda
wrote:
> I don't think its worth to get complete permission model for comments as
> well. Like bhathiya mentioned only comment owner is allowed to
> update/delete his comment. That is the normal behavior. Also i feel its
> better i
The provided workarounds for blocking an api is fine with respect to
developer p.o.v
But is it providing the proper end user experience?
End user(who is invoking the api) will not see the correct error message
unless it has sent a customized error messages for this blocking scenario.
Will not this
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Ishara Karunarathna
wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 1:15 AM, Malithi Edirisinghe
> wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> So in order to support force delete an identity provider, we have to
>> first identify the places the respective identity provider can be referred
>>
Blocking an API temporarily can be a valid scenario. And we already have 3
ways of doing it (1 for admin 2 for API developer). What I'm saying is that
"Blocked" is never a standard state in any SDLC. So what's so special about
an API LC? It is true that older versions of the product had this as a L
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Lakshman Udayakantha
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Don't we have an extensible API lifecycle states in c5 implementation? If
> we have any user who doesn't want this blocked state can remove from state
> configuration and who wants this blocked state can keep this state in
> c
Hi,
If we remove the 'blocked' state from API lifecycle and if we keep the
other options [set throttling limit/ballerina config change] to do API
blocking,we will loose setting workflow extension to the particular blocked
state.[Eg scenario-acknowledge users that API is temporally blocked via a
c
Does this mean we are adding Derby to the list of supported RDBMS for MB
4.0.0?
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 9:05 AM, Pumudu Ruhunage wrote:
> Can we consider javaDB(Derby)[1] which is part of JDK. since it's shipped
> with jdk, it'll be more suitable for unit tests instead of going for
> external da
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 1:15 AM, Malithi Edirisinghe
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> So in order to support force delete an identity provider, we have to first
> identify the places the respective identity provider can be referred and
> then we need to decide on the options we have, on removing those refere
Can we consider javaDB(Derby)[1] which is part of JDK. since it's shipped
with jdk, it'll be more suitable for unit tests instead of going for
external databases/frameworks.
Since we are not using any vendor-specific sql's in DAO it should support
all required sql syntaxes without any issue.
[1]
h
(+) Adding @architecture
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Asanka Abeyweera
wrote:
> Are we planning to use stored procedures? If yes better to use a framework
> that is flexible enough.
>
> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Ramith Jayasinghe
> wrote:
>
>> if you want to mess with the database/
Hi All,
So in order to support force delete an identity provider, we have to first
identify the places the respective identity provider can be referred and
then we need to decide on the options we have, on removing those references.
Basically, an identity provider is referred by a service provider
I don't think its worth to get complete permission model for comments as
well. Like bhathiya mentioned only comment owner is allowed to
update/delete his comment. That is the normal behavior. Also i feel its
better if we can have work flow support for comments(by default this need
to disabled). Onc
Hi,
Don't we have an extensible API lifecycle states in c5 implementation? If
we have any user who doesn't want this blocked state can remove from state
configuration and who wants this blocked state can keep this state in
configuration.
WDYT?
Thanks,
Lakshman
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Nu
If by any chance an API Developer wants to block his entire API
temporarily, he has two options.
1) Set the endpoint limit to 0req/min
2) Use a temporary ballerina to send an error back to the customer.
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 12:06 PM, Sanjeewa Malalgoda
wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 12:09 AM, Ishara Karunarathna
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:14 PM, Prabath Siriwardena
> wrote:
>
>> At the moment we can't delete an identity provider, if its associated
>> with one or more service providers.
>>
>> Also - for the user there is no way to fin
Hi,
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:14 PM, Prabath Siriwardena
wrote:
> At the moment we can't delete an identity provider, if its associated with
> one or more service providers.
>
> Also - for the user there is no way to find out the associated service
> providers for a given identity provider - wi
29 matches
Mail list logo
