I am trying to make multiple pages with the name of users which will then be shared with each them. However, once I tested it by adding one of them, they managed to get to the page, but no results are shown when clicking at the button for pulling the data from the Drive Sheet. The circle is doing a single circle and that's it - no data, only the headers are shown.
Is it required for the users to have the file shared with them in Drive in order to pull it on Google App Maker or is there any security setting that I have to adjust?
Settings in the publish menu:
User roles in Security in the PAGE and DATA:
There are no errors in the Developer or Preview tab.
If you go down with Spreadsheet approach, then you'll face with implementing CRUD operations almost from scratch, what is opposite from the App Maker mission.
only the Admins want to see everything
Out of the box deployment Admins can see all data
employees access only for the accounts assigned to them
You can achieve such security configuration by adding Owner field to your model (Record Permissions).
Take a look at App Maker Templates, there are lots permission configuration samples.
Related
Our application has a multi-tenant architecture where we have multiple different websites deployed using a single codebase. Is there a way to edit the application name (ie. show Sign in to <Website 1> with Google instead of Sign in to <App name> with Google) without needing to create a separate project in Google Console for each website?
If editing the app name is impossible, is there a way to just show Sign in with Google instead?
I don't think Google allows you to do that, basically due to some legal/UX concerns. Take below UX as an example.
Users go to website1, and see prompt for "App Name 1". Then grant it.
Users go to website2, and see prompt for "App Name 2". And it'd be a big surprise, to some of them, that the permission has arleady been granted. Users may think 1)Google granted it without user's consent, or 2) someone had stolen his credentials and granted it, etc.
In summary, you need to make a decision first:
if you think end users should treat your different origins as different apps, you should create different projects for them(, so that their UX are isolated from each others).
if you think users should treat your different origins as a single app, then using same app name is not an issue at all.
I am new to google analytics and noticed that my firebase app was auto linked to a property in my google analytics account as type app + web.
In the data streams section of this property, I would like to ensure data comes through via two sources, www. and admin.. How do I achieve this? The UI on analytics only lets me link one web stream. I also don't seem to be able to edit this once it is set up.
I would actually prefer to set up two separate properties, as they are two different "apps", however in Firebase in Settings > Integrations > Manage you can only link one google property ID.
Both www. and admin. are hosting on the same firebase project, as separate web apps.
Where am I going wrong?
I copied a View to begin incrementally altering it, while testing in real-time, to develop a simple conversion-funnel tracking effort. Both views have been set up with same host name and neither have any filters applied.
When I navigate to our site, my user shows up in real time on only ONE of these views. We have other users displaying in real-time across both views, but again I'm only showing up on one. again, No IP filtering applied.
I can't put my finger on why I'm being excluded from one view but not the other when both views' configurations are EXACTLY identical. Any insights?
Edit: The only settings configured for both are the "View Settings" Both with the exact same "Website's URL" set to www.hostname.com/ , both using https. No other settings configured. No filters, nothing..
Moreover - I have now created third, exact copy of my "All Web Site Data" View and each view shows different Real-Time data. This makes me sad.
Let's assume I want to create an app like Instagram. Every user of my app has his own realm file where he keeps his profile data, pictures, likes of pictures and comments.
What if I want to create a wall where are visible latest pictures of all users of my app? Should I somehow access every single realm file of my users and get a picture or maybe should I create one big shared realm file where I will keep all pictures of all my users?
You should keep them all in one place.
May be it's better to have offline version also (for the user's convenience) but if you want every single user have online access to the database you should't get pictures from the users only everytime you need them. Imagine if someone is offline what then? Or at least some pictures would get downloaded faster than the others due to some people have better internet than the others.
I'm writing a pretty straight forward ASP.NET MVC web app: only a couple of CRUD pages, some folders where clients can browse documents and just 3 or 4 roles. The website will be used in a B2B scenario, where every client will have their "own" website.
At this point, the only thing that will change in the website, from client to client is the content (ie. the documents, and the rows of data they'll see). If this is the case, what's the best way to manage roles across all of my clients? I'm looking for the simplest possible solution because this is a proof of concept and I don't want to invest a lot of time right now.
What if it's not just the content that changes? Maybe some clients will want a few custom static pages. At this point, is my only option replicating the entire website? I'm leery of this because it'll become hard to maintain if I get a lot of clients.
I'd appreciate any help... I just don't want to shoot myself in the foot; I'm sure someone has done this before.
I create Virtual Directories in IIS for each client, all pointed back to the same folder where my ASP.NET code resides.
This allows me to support several dozen nearly-identical "web sites," each with their own database that is basically identical in form, only differs in data.
So, my site URLs look like:
http://mysite.com/clientacme/
http://mysite.com/clientbill/
http://mysite.com/clientcharlie/
There are two key implementation details I worked out for this:
I use the Virtual Directory folder name to determine which DSN my code reads from. This is accomplished by creating a simple static method that injects the folder name into a DSN string template. If you want to use the same database to store everyone's data, you can use the folder name as a default filter in your queries.
I store the settings for each web site (headers and footers, options, links to custom reports, etc.) in a simple "settings" table in each database (key, value) rather than in the web.config (which is shared). This allows me to extend the code base over time to customize the experience for each client without forking the code.
For user authentication, I use Basic authentication, and I keep usernames, passwords, and roles in a table in each database.
The important thing is that if you use different SQL Server databases for each client's content, you need to script any changes to your database tables, indexes, etc. and apply them across all databases at the same time (after testing of course). One simple way to do this is to maintain an Excel sheet with a table of database names and a big "SQL" cell at the top. Beside each database name, create a formula to "USE databasename;" and then concat the SQL code at the top.
I'm not sure if this answers your question completely, but as far as maintaining custom "static" pages I found myself implementing a system on a client's MVC website where the client can create "Pages" from their admin control panel and each Page has a collection of "PageContent" entities which consist of a Title and and HTML content field (populated using a WYISWYG editor). Upon creating a page the MVC application maps http://yoursite.com/Page/Page-Url-Specified-By-The-User to that page and renders its content there. Obviously, the pages are dynamic, but as far as the client can tell they have created a brand new custom page with little or no effort.