When i change typeahead's value and it's already asynchronized, the request not send, and it loads from the old response.
$('#MyTypeahead').typeahead('val', 'something');// Send async request
$('#MyTypeahead').typeahead('val', 'something else');// Send async request
$('#MyTypeahead').typeahead('val', 'something');// loads from the first one
For some reasons i need to async everytime typeahead's value changes
Undocumented, i had to clear remote cache every single search,
The solution is simply disabling cache
remote : { cache:false ...}
Related
Nuxt SSR app using FirebaseUI to handle auth flows. Logging in and out works perfectly. When I add Middleware to check auth state and redirect if not logged in I get this error:
Error: Redirected when going from "/list-cheatsheets" to "/login" via a navigation guard.
middleware/auth.js
export default function ({ store, redirect }) {
// If the user is not authenticated
if (!store.state.user) {
return redirect('/login')
}
}
There is absolutely no other redirecting that I can find in the app....
I have been digging and trying things for hours. Others who get this error that I have found aren't using Nuxt and none of those solutions work.
As there is a bounty one cannot mark it duplicate thus following up is a copy of my answer at Redirecting twice in a single Vue navigation
tldr: vm.$router.push(route) is a promise and needs to .catch(e=>gotCaught(e)) errors.
This will be changed in the next major#4
Currently#3 errors are not distinguished whether they are NavigationFailures or regular Errors.
The naive expected route after vm.$router.push(to) should be to. Thus one can expect some failure message once there was a redirect. Before patching router.push to be a promise the error was ignored silently.
The current solution is to antipattern a .catch(...) onto every push, or to anticipate the change in design and wrap it to expose the failure as result.
Future plans have it to put those informations into the result:
let failure = await this.$router.push(to);
if(failure.type == NavigationFailureType[type]){}
else{}
Imo this error is just by design and should be handled:
hook(route, current, (to: any) => { ... abort(createNavigationRedirectedError(current, route)) ...}
So basically if to contains a redirect it is an error, which kinda is equal to using vm.$router.push into a guard.
To ignore the unhandled error behaviour one can pass an empty onComplete (breaks in future releases):
vm.$router.push(Route, ()=>{})
or wrap it in try .. catch
try {
await this.$router.push("/")
} catch {
}
which prevents the promise to throw uncaught.
to support this without redirecting twice means you put the guard to your exit:
let path = "/"
navguard({path}, undefined, (to)=>this.$router.push(to||path))
which will polute every component redirecting to home
btw the router-link component uses an empty onComplete
Assumption that redirecting twice is not allowed is wrong.
I have been trying to get push notifications working using firebase. So far I have got as far as successfully sending an empty message "tickle". The problem is adding the message payload seems to have no affect on what the client receives. That is the service worker just sees it as another empty message.
I started by going through googles guide here - https://developers.google.com/web/ilt/pwa/introduction-to-push-notifications
After going through how to send an empty message it says the message payload must be encrypted and suggests using an existing library to do it. To quote - "As with anything related to encryption, it's usually easier to use an actively maintained library than to write your own code".
I tried to use web-push-php which is one of the libraries recommended by googles guide. After having trouble with that i discovered web-php-push doesn't actually support firebase.
Looking on here i find examples that look really simple and don't event encrypt the message payload. It is simply sent in plain json. Doing this has no affect and the receiving end still thinks it's an empty message. See my code below.
I am at a complete loss with this and i'm confused why googles guide says the message data must be encrypted but there are countless examples on SO where it is just send in plain json text.
This is what i am posting from my server to the end point.
POST https://fcm.googleapis.com/fcm/send Authorization: key=[my server
key] Content-Type: application/json {"priority":10,"to":"[subscriber
id]","notification":{"body":"test body","title":"test title"}}
Here is my event listener in my service-worker.js
self.addEventListener('push', function(e) {
var body;
if (e.data) {
body = e.data.text();
} else {
body = "No message "+JSON.stringify(e);
}
var options = {
body: body
};
e.waitUntil(
self.registration.showNotification('Launtel Residential', options)
);
});
When i run the post request above the push notification occurs and triggers the service worker 'push' event as expected but no message data is present. e.data returns null. The 'e' object always just contains a flag set to true. e.isTrusted==true
I am using ASP.NET Boilerplate framework, I put the below code in everypage.
#inject IAbpAntiForgeryManager AbpAntiForgeryManager
#{
AbpAntiForgeryManager.SetCookie(Context);
}
I call the app service as below:
var xhr = abp.services.app.order.add(data);
xhr.done(function (data) {
alert(data);
});
Everything works fine when I run in localhost, XSRF token will not expired even if I rebuild the project. Every time when I click [Publish website to IIS], all the ajax request will return 400 Bad Request, I guess it is because the XSRF token has expired, everything back to normal after I click F5 in browser. It was so annoying for the user, any thing I can do to prevent this error? Or auto refresh token?
Thank you!
update
error message in LOG file:
ERROR 2019-02-12 13:40:09,773 [71 ] .Antiforgery.Internal.DefaultAntiforgery - An exception was thrown while deserializing the token.
Microsoft.AspNetCore.Antiforgery.AntiforgeryValidationException: The antiforgery token could not be decrypted. ---> System.Security.Cryptography.CryptographicException: The key {996d31d2-0fa3-4ffe-8e82-e155c1486d33} was not found in the key ring.
Based on the error it sounds like your Data Protection keys have rotated on publish.
Check out the docs on Data Protection here: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/security/data-protection/introduction?view=aspnetcore-2.2.
There's a bunch of options how to configure it, where to store keys etc.
You'll want to change how it is storing them.
More on configuring Data Protection: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/security/data-protection/configuration/overview?view=aspnetcore-2.2.
I'm trying to update my angularjs app to support Firebase 1.1 (I was stick with Firebase 1.0.x).
It deprecates firebasesimplelogin, including authentication inside Firebase core.
I have been able to successfully implement authentication using
authWithOAuthPopup("<provider>", function(error, authData) { ... });
It accepts a callback, which is passed authentication data in authData.
On the contrary, I can't undersand how to use
authWithOAuthRedirect("<provider>", function(error) { ... });
Firebase Authentication docs page is very concise... :-(. This is all what is said:
Alternatively [instead of authWithOAuthPopup], you may prompt the user to login with a full browser redirect, and Firebase will automatically restore the session when you return to the originating page
How do I get authData, when Firebase - after redirection - returns to my page?
The authData is available by registering a listener directly on the ref (so before calling authWithOAuthRedirect).
ref.onAuth(function(authData) {
...
}
ref.authWithOAuthRedirect("google", function(error) { ... });
See https://www.firebase.com/docs/web/guide/user-auth.html#section-monitoring-authentication
I think I'm running into the same issue as you. I'm trying to do Facebook authentication.
First, I'd like to clarify the reproduction steps for my issue.
My app is loaded on the client.
User clicks login with Facebook.
ref.authWithOAuthRedirect('facebook', ...) is called.
Client is redirected to Facebook and Facebook redirects client back to Firebase app
Despite successful authentication with Facebook, the callback passed to onAuth() is invoked (only once) with authData === null.
The callback passed to onAuth() is not invoked a second time with correct authData.
However, reloading the app causes the callback passed to onAuth to be invoked with correct authData. The reasons for this are not known to me but I suspect race condition.
Here's my workaround.
Before calling ref.authWithOAuthRedirect('facebook', ...) set yourself a flag in sessionStorage.
sessionStorage.reload = true;
ref.authWithOAuthRedirect('facebook', ...)
When the client is redirected to your app back from Facebook, you should be able to check for this flag and reload the page if necessary.
if (sessionStorage.reload) {
delete sessionStorage.reload;
setTimeout(function() {
location.reload();
}, 1000)
}
setTimeout(function() { ... }, 1000) helps fight the assumed race condition. I found 500 ms is insufficient time for the race condition to be resolved.
And one small gotcha: if you reload the page too soon, then authData remains null no matter how many times you reload the page.
I am running into a race condition when an unknown user is trying to access a secured page.
Iron-Router code:
function secured() {
if ( Meteor.user() == null ) {
Meteor.loginWithLinkedin({
},function (err){
if(err){
console.log("Error when login with LinkedIn."+JSON.stringify(err));
}
});
}
}
Router.map(function () {this.route('customer_researchRequest', {
before: secured,
waitOn: waitOnHuman,
path: '/research/request',
template: 'customer_researchRequest',
layoutTemplate: 'customer_requestLayout'
});});
On the server:
ServiceConfiguration.configurations.remove({
service: 'linkedin'
});
ServiceConfiguration.configurations.insert({... settings ...});
If the user goes directly to /research/request, there is a race condition.
before condition fires
(on client)ServiceConfiguration.configurations has no configuration
client has exception about no linkedin service defined.
server publishes the ServiceConfiguration.configurations to the client
At this point, my solution is to hard code in the clientId and other linkedin config information into the linkedin authentication code ( Yech ).
Is there a better more elegant/correct solution?
Update #1: My solution was to tweak the meteor-linkedin package so that it expects the linkedIn clientId as an option and does not depend on the ServiceConfiguration.configuration. This way the clientId is always available.
Edited to address comment:
Maybe a different use of reactivity can help. Set up a deferred redirect to customer_researchRequest, by first diverting the user, then bringing them up
A) Have secured() save the original destination path to the session. Redirect to a page you allow without security (or a 'Loading...' page), to avoid your #3
B) when the login callback happens, save another flag to the session, indicating that #4 is no longer true
C) have a Deps.autorun redirect to the desired path when both flags become true.
Someone else may know a smarter way, (maybe waitOn should test for the config) but ...
The best solution turns out to be my "hack" of creating a forked meteor-linkedin which accepts the client configuration in the login call.
We edited the meteor-linkedin so that the Meteor.loginWithLinkedIn() call supplied the linkedIn clientId.
Currently, Meteor's ServiceConfiguration is stored in a mongo table and needs to be published from the server to client. The clientId is essentially a static configuration variable that might as well be encoded into the client code. Just putting the linkedin clientId directly in the login code turns out to be infinitely more reliable and simpler.
Even if Meteor was to 'fix' the publishing race condition, we would stick with our solution: it is bulletproof and guaranteed to work. You can borrow our code our meteor-linkedin and accounts-meteor-linkedin
The meteor dev people aren't planning on fixing the issue. I agree with this decision, it is much better to just have the (constant) client configuration on the client rather than being stored on the server and sent to the client.
Update: In the end for a variety of reasons, we almost entirely abandoning the meteor oauth code. The client-side centric approach with popup dialogs caused numerous problems. I talk about some of the issues on the 1911 bug report. We ended up triggering the oauth code ourselves server-side.