My intent sends a webhook as part of slot filling if a parameter is missing from the user query. My webhook then uses logic to estimate the value of the parameter. How can I return this parameter as part of the WebhookResponse object? I am using the C# client library in an ASP.NET Core app.
My code is:
string fulfillmentText;
WebhookRequest request = null;
using (var reader = new StreamReader(Request.Body))
{
request = jsonParser.Parse<WebhookRequest>(reader);
}
//If Parameter-1 has no value
if (request.QueryResult.Fields["Parameter-1].StringValue.Length == 0)
{
fulfillmentText = "I have guessed the value of Parameter-1";
//I apply some logic that is unimportant to this question
//For the sake of simplicity, say I estimate the value of Parameter-1 to be "foobar"
//I want to be able to give the parameter this value like this:
parameter["Parameter-1"] = "foobar"
}
UPDATE
So, I have pretty much got it all working using Prisoner's method. I will retry sid8491's at some point too. My intent is trying to obtain a user's address. I have required custom entities to retrieve the street number, street name, suburb and state.
Without creating any contexts myself, the following context is automatically generated by Dialogflow: projects/telebot-pianomoves-v1/agent/sessions/2b42cbc8-2418-4231-e4c0-bd3a175f2ea8/contexts/1320fe35-4329-4176-b136-9221dfaddd4e_id_dialog_context. I receive this context in my webhook, and can then CHANGE the value of a parameter. Let's assume $Suburb_Entity had no value in the webhook request and my code then returned the above context with the a new value for Suburb_Entity. My code successfully changes the Suburb_Entity from "" to aspendale as can be seen by the webhook response json:
Now the odd thing is, although I changed the Suburb_Entity to an actual value in the outputContext of my webhook response, the actual parameter $Suburb_Entity only changes to the new value of Suburb_Entity from the outputContext on the NEXT detect intent request. So, keeping in mind the fact that I returned the new Suburb_Entity in the outputContext of the webhook response, this is the detect intent response I get - noting that $Suburb_Entity is yet to be changed:
On the next detect intent request, the webhook request parameter Suburb_Entity is set to aspendale and $Suburb_Entity also equals aspendale. The important thing about this, is $Suburb_Entity only changed to the outputContext parameter value on the NEXT detect intent request, of which would have triggered another webhook. $Suburb_Entity did not change during the same detect intent request as when I modified the outputContext parameter Suburb_Entity, but in the next. This leads me to believe that somehow, $Suburb_Entity inherits parameter values from this automatically generated context. The issue here, is that when my webhook responds with the outputContext paramter Suburb_Entity equalling aspendale, $Suburb_Entity does not change to this value until the next request. This means that if all the other parameters have values set, but $Suburb_Entity is yet to have changed value, then allRequiredParamsSet == false. If I return the Suburb_Entity in the outputContext, I want it to immediately change the value of $Suburb_Entity without requiring another detect intent request so that allRequiredParamsSet == true in such a circumstance. I tried setting the default value by doing this (it didn't work):
An alternative of course would be a way for me to force allRequiredParamsSet = true. I save the parameter values from this the context parameter, not the actual response. So I don't need $Suburb_Entity, I just want the intent to think that it has a value.
Cheers
When you use a webhook for "slot filling", the intention is that you return the prompts you want to ask the user for and continue to use the same Intent to handle the responses. You're not expected to create values yourself.
If you want to "fill in" some answers that are used in the static "response" section of the Dialogflow Intent, or if you just want to record the answers so you can use them later, you can set the parameters of a Context. In the response string, you can refer to this value as #context-name.parameter-name.
Update
I don't know the internal mechanics of slot filling, but it doesn't surprise me that setting a value in the internal context for the input parameters doesn't "register" until the next round of handling the Intent.
The webhook for slot filling isn't intended to create values - it is intended to handle values and create prompts for the user to respond to. Intents are generally about processing user inputs and webhooks about handling them.
My workaround suggested that if you want this for output, you use the context for output.
There are multiple steps for get it done:
First give an event in intent
Check your condition in webhook
If your condition is satisfied, invoke the intent by calling the event from webhook which you have defined in step 1
Pass the paylaod (in json format) along with event calling, give parameters in the payload
In the intent, give default value of parameter as #eventName.parameterName
Hope it helps.
Related
This is a question about the default behaviour of #mswjs/data.toHandlers function using this example with #mswjs/data to create mocks for RTK-Query calls.
https://codesandbox.io/s/github/reduxjs/redux-toolkit/tree/master/examples/query/react/mutations?from-embed
the file src/mocks/db.ts creates a mock database using #mswjs/data and defines default http mock responses using ...db.post.toHandlers('rest') but fails to work if I remove the additional PUT and POST mocks.
My understanding is that #mswjs/data toHandlers() function provides PUT and POST mock API calls for a defined database (in this case Posts) by default according to the github documentation so I am seeking advice to understand better why toHandlers does not work for PUT and POST in this example. i.e. if i remove PUT and POST mock API calls they fail.
What do the manual PUT and POST API mocks do that the default toHandlers dont?
You are correct to state that .toHandlers() generates both POST /posts and PUT /posts/:id request handlers. The RTK-Query example adds those handlers explicitly for the following reasons:
To emulate flaky error behavior by returning an error response based on the Math.random() value in the handler.
To set the id primary key to nanoid().
Adding a post fails if you remove the explicit POST /posts handler because the model definition for post does not define the initial value for the id primary key. You cannot create an entity without providing a primary key to it, which the example does not:
// PostManager.tsx
// The "post" state only contains the name of the new post.
const [post, setPost] = useState<Pick<Post, "name">>(initialValue);
// Only the "post" state is passed to the code that dispatches the
// "POST /posts" request handled by MSW.
await addPost(post).unwrap();
If we omit the random error behavior, I think the example should've used nanoid as the initial value of the id property in the model description:
import { nanoid } from "#reduxjs/toolkit";
const db = factory({
post: {
- id: primaryKey(String),
+ id: primaryKey(nanoid),
name: String
}
});
This way you would be able to create new posts by supplying the name only. The value of the id primary key would be generated using the value getter—the nanoid function.
The post edit operation functions correctly even if you remove the explicit PUT /posts/:id request handler because, unlike the POST handler, the PUT one is only there to implement a flaky error behavior (the edited post id is provided in the path parameters: req.params.id).
Say I have 3 states, A -> B -> C. Let's assume inputs to A include a field called names which is of type List and each element contains two fields firstName and lastName. State B will process the inputs to A and and return a response called newLastName. If I want to override every element in names such that names[i].lastName = newLastName before passing this input to state C, is there an built-in syntax to achieve that? Thanks.
You control the events passed to the next task in a Step Function with three defintion attributes: ResultPath and OutputPath on leaving one task and InputPath on entering the next one.
You have to first understand how the event to the next task is crafted by a State Machine, and each of the 3 above parameters changes it.
You have to at least have Result Path. This is the key in the event that the output of your lambda will be placed under. so ResultPath="$.my_path" would result in a json object that has a top level key of my_path with the value equal to whatever is outputted from the lambda.
If this is the only attribute, it is tacked onto whatever the input was. So if your Input event was a json object with keys original_key1 and some_other_key your output with just the above result path would be:
{
"original_key_1": some value,
"some_other_key": some other value,
"my_path": the output of your lambda
}
Now if you add OutputPath, this cuts off everything OTHER than the path (AFTER adding the result path!) in the next output.
If you added OutputPath="$.my_path" you would end up with a json of:
{ output of your lambda }
(your output better be a json comparable object, like a python dict!)
InputPath does the same thing ... but for the Input. It cuts off everything other than the path described, and that is the only thing sent into the lambda. But it does not stop the input from being appeneded - so InputPath + ResultPath results in less being sent into the lambda, but everything all together on the exit
There isn't really a loop logic like the one you describe however - Task and State Machine definitions are static directions, not dynamic logic.
You can simply handle it inside the lambda. This is kinda the preferred method. HOWEVER if you do this, then you should use a combination of OutputPath and ResultPath to 'cut off' the input, having replaced the various fields of the incoming event with whatever you want before returning it at the end.
I want to be able to specify a custom list of valid options for a slot that LEX will either attempt to approximate towards or, in the event that no valid option can be approximated, reject the invalid response.
At first I attempted to do this through custom slot types. And though their examples may lead you to believe these are enumerations, they are not. A user still has the capacity to input whatever value they like.
Their documentation has this to say: https://developer.amazon.com/public/solutions/alexa/alexa-skills-kit/docs/migrating-to-the-improved-built-in-and-custom-slot-types#literal
A custom slot type is not the equivalent of an enumeration. Values outside the list may still be returned if recognized by the spoken language understanding system. Although input to a custom slot type is weighted towards the values in the list, it is not constrained to just the items on the list. Your code still needs to include validation and error checking when using slot values.
I am aware that I can validate their submission through a lambda after they have completed their full submission, but by then it's too late. A user has submitted their full intent message. I'm unable to capture it midway and correct them.
Am I missing some way to input slot options or a configuration option for custom slot types? Is there any way to enforce a custom list of options for a slot? (Similar to utterances for intents, or the built in slot types, which will ask the same question again if there is no match.)
Thanks!
I'm unable to capture it midway and correct them.
You can capture the error in lambda without fulfilling the intent and starting over. Here's how I validate input with Python.
If you detect a validation error in lambda, you can elicit the same slot and pass your error message. This allows you to set complex validation rules and have your bot return specific responses to the user.
def validate(input):
if input not in ['foo', 'bar']:
return elicit_slot("Your response must be foo or bar")
def elicit_slot(error_message):
return {
'dialogAction': {
'type': 'ElicitSlot',
'intentName': current_intent,
'slots': current_slots,
'slotToElicit': slot_with_validation_error,
'message': {'contentType': 'PlainText', 'content': error_message }
}
}
I'm trying to run an MVC unit test on an action that clones a record. Naturally, we use the master record's primary key to pull it from the database first using a simple DbSet.Find(). Right now I have about 100 unit tests written, and 98/100 are passing including a number of which are required to test various aspects of this type of transaction... and they're all passing.
In the first step a user has chosen to create an Agency but selected that they also would like to add another. The page will post back to the Create POST controller method and save.
Once the save is complete, the program is design to re-route back to the Create GET method. From there it gathers the relevant information and posts the new model object back to the view.
var result = _controlAgtTran.Create(_agency, "andAddAnother") as RedirectToRouteResult;
var message = _controlAgtTran.Create(int.Parse(result.RouteValues["id"].ToString()), null, null, null, null, null, true, result.RouteValues["msg"].ToString()) as ViewResult;
Nothing too complicated happens once we're re-routed to the GET action, as you can see below. We simply call a DbSet.Find(<PK>) method to grab the object we just saved.
AgentTransmission master = db.AgentTransmission.Find(id);
However, each and every time, and for this operation alone, I the following error message. I've stepped through the code to make sure the id variable is not null, I've queried the database to make sure it's correct, and I've compared this portion of the unit test to others in the solution and can't find a difference. Any help/suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
The property 'ID' is part of the object's key information and cannot be modified.
EDIT
So I have a remote ColdFusion Function like:
remote string function name (required numeric varname){
This is accessed via AJAX call. Google has taken it upon itself to pass in junk/blank values to the URL to this remote function. How can I gracefully handle those for Bots/Users to manage to get in a junk value. I've tried putting try/catch around/inside the function and doesn't work. I've also tried setting a default value but I still get an error. I'd like to be able to return an error message.
Thoughts?
Right now:
domain.com/path/to/page.cfc?method=function&varname=
Is throwing an error
domain.com/path/to/page.cfc?method=function&varname=5
Is working as expected.
Update:
I am leaving this here for posterity, as it explains the cause of the error and chain of events with validation. However, Adam's response is the correct solution IMO.
remote string function name (required numeric varname){
I've tried putting try/catch around/inside the function and doesn't work.
Because the argument value is validated before CF executes anything inside the function. So it never even gets to the try/catch.
If you want to allow non-numeric values, you must set the argument type to string and perform validation inside the function. ie
// use whatever check is appropriate here
if ( IsNumeric(arguments.varname) ) {
// good value. do something
}
else {
// bad value. do something else
}
I've also tried setting a default value but I still get an error
domain.com/path/to/page.cfc?method=function&varname=
Update
The reason it does not work is because the varname parameter does exists. Its value is an empty string. As long as some value is passed (even an empty string) the default is ignored.
I disagree that the accepted solution is the best approach here.
Firstly, if your method is expecting a numeric and it's being passed a string, then an error is precisely the correct reaction here. You shouldn't feel the need to mitigate for requests that pass invalid values. Consider it like someone making a request to http://some.domain/path/to/file/wrongOne.html (they should have requested http://some.domain/path/to/file/rightOne.html)... it's completely OK for things to return a 404 "error" there, isn't it? An error response is exactly right in that situation.
Similarly, you have dictated that for your remote call URL, that argument is supposed to be numeric. So if it's not numeric... that is an error condition. So your server returning a 500-type error is actually the correct thing to do.
This is an example of the "garbage in, garbage out" rule.
If you are looking for an elegant solution, I'd say you already have the most elegant solution. Don't mess around writing special code to deal with incorrectly made requests. That is not an elegant approach.
You are better off letting the thing error, because then the mechanism requesting the URL will stop doing it. Messing around so that you are returning a 200 OK for a request that wasn't "OK" is the wrong thing to do.
Errors - when they are the correct result - are fine. There's nothing wrong with them.