I want to run a function on each user.
I know how to target a user logged in (this.userId client-side or Meteor.userId server-side) but not all the users - regardless they are logged in or not.
The idea is to check if a date type field (profile.Actu), so in the profile user schema, is passed by more than 15 days. If yes, send a mail to a profile.recipients (also a field (email type) in the profile.user schema.
Then I will run this function by a cron task, like every day, on each user, in order to check if that function must send a mail if the date (profile.Actu) is, that day, passed... Hope you understand the idea.
Can anyone help me ? I'm very new to meteor, so my question may look naive... Thanks.
You should run this on the server. There is a method called
Meteor.users()
Which will return you a list of all the users, which you iterate over. http://docs.meteor.com/api/accounts.html#Meteor-users
If you want to do this on a regular basis, you should use a package like synced-cron https://atmospherejs.com/percolate/synced-cron to do the job.
and in case you need a reference for sending emails, look here http://docs.meteor.com/api/email.html
Related
Dear StackOverflow community,
For a project of mine I need to store (Temporary) data somewhere else than a Database. Actually its a little more complicated. I have a checkout page in NopCommerce where users can select them delivery moment or even location for example pickup. This data has to be store temporary untill the user made the payment. Only then I will request the data and store in DB. So that later I can retrieve the data and display in my dashboard, So that I know when the package is scheduled to be shipped.
Requirements:
Endurement: 12-24 Hours.
Store as user specific data.
Data has to be safed for quite a few sessions. Depends on the user. For example. If the user chooses a delivery moment but desides to look somewhere else before paying. This data has to be stored all those sessions.
If possible serverside.
I have quite a few options following Microsoft:
Session and state management in ASP.NET Core
Now I have tried storing data in Memory (Caching data) using 'MemoryCacheEntryOptions'. The problem is that its application wide. And its hard to maintain with hundreds of users.
Other option is 'Session state'.
The problem is that this data only endures a single session. I need to hold the data for atleast 12 to 24 hours.
Then we have 'Temp Data'. This seems like a promising option. Its great since it is kept until the is has been used/read. You even have 'Peek' and 'Keep' Methods to keep the data while peeking. Problem: It requires a controller. And requesting the data is a callback Method that doesnt require a Controller.
'Query Strings' Well its not much is it? This may be not user critical data BUT seems like query string isnt what Im looking for.
'Hidden Fields' Not really suitable either. It is therefore not form data.
'HttpContext.Items' Definetly not suitable. Data is only stored for single request.
'Cache' Way to hard to maintain user specific data.
So my question is. How do I save all this data temporary, if possible server side for a day atleast with hundreds of users at the same moment. And request the data later in a callback, to store it in DB until the order is shipped.
NopCommerce exposes a class called GenericAttributeService in Nop.Services.Common. This allows you to store your custom attribute data, specific to each customer.
To use it, first inject the GenericAttributeService into your class (controller, service class, etc).
private readonly IGenericAttributeService _genericAttributeService;
public MyFancyController(IGenericAttributeService genericAttributeService)
{
_genericAttributeService = genericAttributeService;
}
To save the data for current customer, use SaveAttribute and save an key-value pair you need:
_genericAttributeService.SaveAttribute<string>(_workContext.CurrentCustomer, "MyKeyName", "Value to save for this customer")
_genericAttributeService.SaveAttribute<int>(_workContext.CurrentCustomer, "My2ndKeyName", model.id)
To get the data use GetAttributesForEntity, where the entity is your key value.
var attribute = _genericAttributeService.GetAttributesForEntity(_workContext.CurrentCustomer.Id, "Customer").Where(x => x.Key == "MyKeyName").FirstOrDefault();
To delete the attribute use DeleteAttribute:
_genericAttributeService.DeleteAttribute(attribute);
Notice that we used _workContext which helps expose the current customer.
This already works well with other temp functionality already existing in the application, such as managing shopping carts, wish lists, etc, so browsing the source code for other examples can also be helpful.
I try to manage the access rights for users to edit or view different articles.
Articles can be created dynamically and the rights should be editable for every article.
In my case, I have a User object and multiple other objects (Article, and more...).
I need to check if a User can read or write any kind of object.
I actually see there is a method Voters, but they only can manage User groups?
Can somebody help me?
A Voter can decide almost anything - usually it's based on a user's permission, but it doesn't have to be - I've used one as a 'feature flag' check, with a value fetched from a configuration, or database entry to show something - or not, as an example.
The page on voters has an example on viewing, or editing a database record (a Post entity, via a $this->denyAccessUnlessGranted('edit', $post);.
In your instance, the voter would be passed the 'attribute', the object (Article, etc) you want to check on, and gets the current user from a service. If that user has the appropriate permission to read/edit/delete the Article or other object, it returns true.
When I save a user in my firebase db I do it via this path:
/allUsers/serviceUsers/${usersUID}
However, firebase adds another apparent UID to this UID.
Is there anyway to prevent this or tell firebase to not do it?
The first ID after serviceUsers is the ID I care about. The second one is generated by firebase and is making working with these objects in the app more painful. I would like that the user object be directly nested under the ID after serviceUsers. How can I achieve this?
Try to call :
firebase.database().ref("/allUsers/serviceUsers/${uid}").setValue(user)
Instead of :
firebase.database().ref("/allUsers/serviceUsers/${uid}").push(user)
The push function generate an automatic id.
Why not just use a regular POST to
/allUsers/serviceUsers/
and return the ID? The path parameter should only be used on an update, read, or delete, if you are adhering to REST.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representational_state_transfer#Applied_to_Web_services
I've created an action programmatically and added a VBO to a view in order to execute the action on one or more users. The action itself simply removes a few roles and adds a new role to the selected users. I call user_save from within the action to save the changes to the roles.
If I look at the user_roles table in the database while the action is running, I can see the role ids for the specific user, changing to the new role in realtime. However, when the VBO is complete, it seems to revert back to the original user object so that none of the old roles have been removed and the new role hasn't been added. It has to be something happening after my action is executed, but I can't imagine what it is.
Oddly enough, if I run the VBO a second time, it seems to work.
My action is defined in hook_action_info as type "user" and triggers is an array with "any" as the only parameter.
If I call the action directly using actions_do, it works perfectly the first time.
Any ideas?
I suggest to use a few users to test the VBO and also implement hook_user_update with dpm (devel module) and debug_backtrace. This could give a hint of what is happening, it's a weird behaviour that you will discover only debugging.
If you have more info please append it to your question so everyone could help.
Hope that helps.
The documentation reads:
Helper function for authentication
modules. Either login in or registers
the current user, based on username.
Either way, the global $user object is
populated based on $name.
It seems to me that this function does not actually perform a login (it does not trigger the user_hook with op=login. It does not call user_external_login or even user_authenticate_finalize.
Am I interpreting it wrong?
I looked through the code, and it doesn't invoke hook_user() op = 'login'. You can do that in your own module though.
Look at user_module_invoke() to do this.
It does log the user in.
Last lines in code,
// Log user in.
$form_state['uid'] = $account->uid;
user_login_submit(array(), $form_state);
, seems to say that, in spite of submitting a wrong password.
System seems to create a user (named like that name provided in the login form) and save locally whichever wrong password provided (which will be, then, the "right" password).
If you do not take further action, then, it will not even care about an external authentication source and the real onwer of that name will not be able to log in later...
Scary, uh?