I have been assigned to work on an existing Cosmos DB implementation. The indexing policy does not seem to make sense at first glance. I understand that "/*" is supposed to be "root and all paths under it". So, why would someone make a policy like this?
"includedPaths": [
{
"path": "/*"
},
{
"path": "/foo/?"
},
{
"path": "/bar/?"
}
]
In this case, "foo" and "bar" are legitimate attributes. However, I don't understand why they are specified explicitly, when "/*" is already present.
Ideas?
Related
I want to only create a Pull Request for the below specified dependencies. All other dependencies should not be considered. The config below does not do that because I get separate PR's for all dependencies that do not match the rules I specified. For example I get a PR for SimpleInjector.
How can I get one PR only for the Dependencies that match, but no other PR's at all without creating explicit exclusion rules for every dependency?
"packageRules": [
{
"matchPackagePatterns": [
"System.*",
],
"excludePackageNames": ["Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.FxCopAnalyzers"],
"matchUpdateTypes": [
"minor",
"patch"
],
"groupName": "non major",
"groupSlug": "non-major"
}
]
}
There are two things to know that were key to solve this problem:
Rules get evaluated from top to bottom
All dependencies get updated by default
The config below disables all dependencies first and then selectively enables some dependencies again:
"packageRules": [
{
"matchPackagePatterns": ["*"],
"enabled": false
},
{
"matchPackagePatterns": [
"System.*",
],
"enabled": true
},
{
"matchUpdateTypes": [
"minor",
"patch"
],
"groupSlug": "non-major"
}
]
Read here: https://docs.renovatebot.com/configuration-options/#packagerules
Important to know: Renovate will evaluate all packageRules and not stop once it gets a first match. You should order your packageRules in ascending order of importance so that more important rules come later and can override settings from earlier rules if needed.
I need to customize the ruleset used by pa11y.
For instance let's say I want to follow WCAG2A but want to add some rules from WCAG2AA.
I tried with something like this for configuration in my .pa11yci-file:
{
"defaults": {
"standard": "WCAG2A",
"rules": ["WCAG2AA.Principle1.Guideline1_1.1_1_1.H30.2"],
"hideElements": "",
"ignore": [],
"includeWarnings": true,
"timeout": 5000,
"threshold": 0
},
"urls": [
{
"url": "https://www.ecster.se",
"actions": [
]
}]
}
But I only get this in the console:
Error: Evaluation failed: Error: WCAG2AA.Principle1.Guideline1_1.1_1_1.H30.2 is not a valid WCAG 2.0 rule
at configureHtmlCodeSniffer (<anonymous>:60:13)
at runPa11y (<anonymous>:30:3)
I get my rulenames from here:
https://github.com/pa11y/pa11y/wiki/HTML-CodeSniffer-Rules
Using latest version of pa11y-ci: 2.1.1.
Looking at the Pa11y documentation it looks as though you need to reference rules without the standard.
E.g. Principle1.Guideline1_1.1_1_1.H30.2, not WCAG2AA.Principle1.Guideline1_1.1_1_1.H30.2
Worth noting that that Guideline you've used as an example is already present in both WCAG2A and WCAG2AA. Might be worth trying with one that's only present in AA and above e.g. Principle3.Guideline3_1.3_1_2.H58.1.Lang
You should have a rules property with an array of rules you wish to include.
...
"rules": [ "standard.you.wish.to.include",...],
...
It's a simple check to restrict duplicate entries, i can't find a way to do it, thought.
Shema:
{
"languages": {
"unique_id": {
"code": "Fr",
"name": "French"
},
"unique_id": {
"code": "En",
"name": "English"
}
}
}
Security rule that i've tried:
service cloud.firestore {
match /databases/{database}/documents {
match /languages/{language} {
allow write: if !(resource.data.hasAny([request.resource.code]));
}
}
}
For instance :this must not allowed
{
"languages": {
"unique_id": {
"code": "Fr",
"name": "French"
},
"unique_id": {
"code": "En",
"name": "English"
},
"unique_id": {
"code": "Fr",
"name": "German"
}
}
}
There really isn't a good way to do it with the current schema. Below are 2 methods with different trade-offs you could explore.
Invert Data Model
Change your data model to make uniqueness the only option, which removes the need to validate.
{
"languages": {
"Fr": {
"name": "French"
},
"En": {
"name": "English"
}
}
}
Note in this model it isn't possible to add your broken case.
To query for any document with a particular language code, e.g. 'En', you can do:
.where("En.name", ">", "")
Pros:
Non-unique language codes are impossible
Simple to implement
Cons:
You won't be able to do composite indexes on language code or name
Post-validation
Alternatively, you can set up a Cloud Functions to trigger on any writes. This Function can then have code to do the uniqueness enforcement for you. It would then follow some logic you define if it detects an issue, such as either flagging the document as bad or removing & logging the subsequent non-unique entries.
Pros:
You can do composite indexes with languages.unique_id.code and languages.unique_id.name
Cons:
Incorrect data can exist for short periods of time
Harder to give errors back to the client
Post-Update
Rather than allowing clients to update the language codes, require them to write to a subcollection. Have Cloud Functions trigger on update to the sub-collection, then update the master document if it pasts your checks. Optionally you can then delete the document in the subcollection or leave it as an audit trail.
Pros:
You can do composite indexes with languages.unique_id.code and languages.unique_id.name
Document will always be correct
Cons:
Data in the document can be stale for short periods of time
Harder to give errors back to the client
I would like to add to add a custom extension to my Schedule resource.
In my app, Schedule have visit motives (reasons). I know there's a list of classified appointments / encounter reasons but I would like to use mine.
I have something like this :
{
"resourceType":"Schedule",
"identifier":"logical_id",
"type":"schedule_speciality",
"actor":{
"practioner_id":"identifier",
"practioner_name":"practioner name"
},
"external_id":{
"extension":[
{
"url":"http://api.test.com/fhir/schedule/external_id",
"valueIdentifier":"external_id"
}
]
},
"visit_motives":{
"extension":[
{
"url":"https://api.test.com/fhir/ValueSet/schedule#visit_motives",
"valueString":"vist_motive1"
},
{
"url":"https://api.test.com/fhir/ValueSet/schedule#visit_motives",
"valueString":"vist_motive2"
},
{
"url":"https://api.test.com/fhir/ValueSet/schedule#visit_motives",
"valueString":"vist_motive3"
}
]
},
"practice_id":{
"extension":[
{
"url":"https://api.test.com/fhir/schedule/practice_id",
"valueIdentifier":"practice_id"
}
]
}
}
I'm not sure about this part :
"visit_motives":{
"extension":[
{
"url":"https://api.test.com/fhir/ValueSet/schedule#visit_motives",
"valueString":"vist_motive1"
},
{
"url":"https://api.test.com/fhir/ValueSet/schedule#visit_motives",
"valueString":"vist_motive2"
},
{
"url":"https://api.test.com/fhir/ValueSet/schedule#visit_motives",
"valueString":"vist_motive3"
}
]
}
Is it correct to add an extension this way ? There are always multiple visit motives for a specific schedule so I have to list them.
I also have seen this kind of things :
"visit_motives": {
"coding": [
{
"system": "https://api.test.com/fhir/ValueSet/schedule#visit_motives",
"code": "visit_motive1"
}
]
}
Which one is the correct one or am I wrong ?
There are several issues here:
It seems odd to capture a "reason" on a schedule. A schedule says when a particular clinician or clinic or other resource is available. E.g. "Dr. Smith takes appointments Mon/Wed/Fri from 1pm-4pm". So if you were to capture a reason on the resource, it would reflect "Why does Dr. Smith have a schedule?" Typically reasons are captured for an individual Appointment. That's the resource that reserves a particular slot for a planned visit. And Appointment already has an element for reason where you're free to use your own codes or just send text.
You have extensions to convey identifiers, but Schedule already has an element for identifiers. Why would you use extensions instead of the standard element? Note that you can use the "system" and/or "type" components to differentiate different kinds of identifiers.
You're sending "identifier", "type", "name", etc. as simple strings - but they're complex data types, so you need to communicate the child elements
actor is of type Reference - that means you need to point to the Practitioner resource. You can't send the properties in-line. (If the Practitioner only exists in the context of the Schedule, you could use the "contained" approach which would use an internal reference, but containment doesn't seem to make sense in this use-case.
The URL for your extension contains ValueSet, which isn't correct - extensions are all structure definitions. Also, there shouldn't be a # symbol in the URL.
Your syntax for extensions is incorrect. You can't introduce new properties in FHIR. The property name for all extensions is just "extension". You differentiate by the URL. So your syntax should be:
{
"resourceType":"Schedule",
"id":"logical_id",
"extension": [
{
"url":"https://api.test.com/fhir/StructureDefinition/schedule-visit_motive",
"valueString":"vist_motive1"
},
{
"url":"https://api.test.com/fhir/StructureDefinition/schedule-visit_motive",
"valueString":"vist_motive2"
},
{
"url":"https://api.test.com/fhir/StructureDefinition/schedule-visit_motives",
"valueString":"vist_motive3"
}
],
"identifier": [
{
"system": http://api.test.com/fhir/NamingSystem/external_id",
"value": "external_id"
}
{
"system": http://api.test.com/fhir/NamingSystem/practice_id",
"value": "practice_id"
}
]
"type": {
"coding": {
"system": "http://somewhere.org/fhir/CodeSystem/specialties",
"code": "schedule_speciality"
},
"text": "Some text description of specialty"
},
"actor":{
"reference": "http://myserver.org/fhir/Practitioner/12345"
"display": "Dr. smith"
}
}
** UPDATE **
Thanks to Alfred Fuller for pointing out that I need to create a manual index for this query.
Unfortunately, using the JSON API, from a .NET application, there does not appear to be an officially supported way of doing so. In fact, there does not officially appear to be a way to do this at all from an app outside of App Engine, which is strange since the Cloud Datastore API was designed to allow access to the Datastore outside of App Engine.
The closest hack I could find was to POST the index definition using RPC to http://appengine.google.com/api/datastore/index/add. Can someone give me the raw spec for how to do this exactly (i.e. URL parameters, what exactly should the body look like, etc), perhaps using Fiddler to inspect the call made by appcfg.cmd?
** ORIGINAL QUESTION **
According to the docs, "a query can combine equality (EQUAL) filters for different properties, along with one or more inequality filters on a single property".
However, this query fails:
{
"query": {
"kinds": [
{
"name": "CodeProse.Pogo.Tests.TestPerson"
}
],
"filter": {
"compositeFilter": {
"operator": "and",
"filters": [
{
"propertyFilter": {
"operator": "equal",
"property": {
"name": "DepartmentCode"
},
"value": {
"integerValue": "123"
}
}
},
{
"propertyFilter": {
"operator": "greaterThan",
"property": {
"name": "HourlyRate"
},
"value": {
"doubleValue": 50
}
}
},
{
"propertyFilter": {
"operator": "lessThan",
"property": {
"name": "HourlyRate"
},
"value": {
"doubleValue": 100
}
}
}
]
}
}
}
}
with the following response:
{
"error": {
"errors": [
{
"domain": "global",
"reason": "FAILED_PRECONDITION",
"message": "no matching index found.",
"locationType": "header",
"location": "If-Match"
}
],
"code": 412,
"message": "no matching index found."
}
}
The JSON API does not yet support local index generation, but we've documented a process that you can follow to generate the xml definition of the index at https://developers.google.com/datastore/docs/tools/indexconfig#Datastore_Manual_index_configuration
Please give this a shot and let us know if it doesn't work.
This is a temporary solution that we hope to replace with automatic local index generation as soon as we can.
The error "no matching index found." indicates that an index needs to be added for the query to work. See the auto index generation documentation.
In this case you need an index with the properties DepartmentCode and HourlyRate (in that order).
For gcloud-node I fixed it with those 3 links:
https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/gcloud-node/issues/369
https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/gcloud-node/blob/master/system-test/data/index.yaml
and most important link:
https://cloud.google.com/appengine/docs/python/config/indexconfig#Python_About_index_yaml to write your index.yaml file
As explained in the last link, an index is what allows complex queries to run faster by storing the result set of the queries in an index. When you get no matching index found it means that you tried to run a complex query involving order or filter. So to make your query work, you need to create your index on the google datastore indexes by creating a config file manually to define your indexes that represent the query you are trying to run. Here is how you fix:
create an index.yaml file in a folder named for example indexes in your app directory by following the directives for the python conf file: https://cloud.google.com/appengine/docs/python/config/indexconfig#Python_About_index_yaml or get inspiration from the gcloud-node tests in https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/gcloud-node/blob/master/system-test/data/index.yaml
create the indexes from the config file with this command:
gcloud preview datastore create-indexes indexes/index.yaml
see https://cloud.google.com/sdk/gcloud/reference/preview/datastore/create-indexes
wait for the indexes to serve on your developer console in Cloud Datastore/Indexes, the interface should display "serving" once the index is built
once it is serving your query should work
For example for this query:
var q = ds.createQuery('project')
.filter('tags =', category)
.order('-date');
index.yaml looks like:
indexes:
- kind: project
ancestor: no
properties:
- name: tags
- name: date
direction: desc
Try not to order the result. After removing orderby(), it worked for me.