I'm using the Cognito Javscript SDK, and I've created a form where a user can register an account. If, for whatever reason, server-side validation fails, the response looks like this:
{
"__type":"InvalidParameterException",
"message":"4 validation errors detected: Value at 'password' failed to satisfy constraint: Member must have length greater than or equal to 6; Value at 'password' failed to satisfy constraint: Member must satisfy regular expression pattern: [\\S]+; Value at 'username' failed to satisfy constraint: Member must have length greater than or equal to 1; Value at 'username' failed to satisfy constraint: Member must satisfy regular expression pattern: [\\p{L}\\p{M}\\p{S}\\p{N}\\p{P}]+"
}
The problem with this response is that I can't provide good user feedback because I'd have to parse the response to determine which fields need to be fixed. Is there a way to get the errors back in a format that is better for working with programmatically?
The best way to do this at the moment, is to programmatically grab the values by cutting out the substrings after 'value at'.
I haven't got an example of any library that might help in doing this but this is good feedback though.
Just in case anyone is stumbling on this ages later, the answer is to use response.code:
this.cognitoUser.forgotPassword({
onSuccess: (data) => {
},
onFailure: (data) => {
console.log(data)
/*
{
"__type":"InvalidParameterException",
"message":"4 validation errors etc"
}
*/
console.log(data.code)
/*
"InvalidParameterException"
*/
}
})
You have to first json stringify and then json parse the object to get values.
Try following sample code -
var errorObj = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(data));
console.log(errorObj.statusCode);
Related
I am trying to make the primary key of my dynamodb table something like user_uuid. The user is being created in AWS Cognito and I can't seem to find a uuid like field as part of the CognitoUser class. I am trying to avoid using the username as the pk.
Can someone guide me to the right solution? I can't seem to find anything on the internet regarding a user_uuid field and for some reason I can't even find the documentation of CognitoUser class that is imported from "amazon-cognito-identity-js";
Depends if you plan to use email or phone as a 'username'. In that case, I would use the sub because it never changes. But, the sub is not k-sortable so that requires the use of an extra DB item and index/join to make users sortable by date added. If you plan to generate your GUID/KSUID, and only use email/phone as an alias, then I would use the 'username' as a common id between your DB and userpool.
Good luck with your project!
FWIW - the KSUID generators found in wild are massively overbuilt. 3000+ lines of code and 80+ dependencies. I made my own k-sortable and prefixed pseudo-random ID gen for Cognito users. Here's the code.
export function idGen(prefix: any) {
const validPrefix = [
'prefix1',
'prefix2'
];
//check if prefix argument is supplied
if (!prefix) {
return 'error! must supply prefix';
}
//check if value is a valid type
else if (validPrefix.indexOf(prefix) == -1) {
return 'error! prefix value supplied must be: ' + validPrefix;
} else {
// generate epoch time in seconds
const epoch = Math.round(Date.now() / 1000);
// convert epoch time to 6 character base36 string
const time = epoch.toString(36);
// generate 20 character base36 pseudo random string
const random =
Math.random().toString(36).substring(2, 12) +
Math.random().toString(36).substring(2, 12);
// combine prefix, strings, insert : divider and return id
return prefix + ':' + time + random;
}
}
Cognito user unique identifiers can be saved to a database using a combination of the "sub" value and the username, please refer to this question for a more lengthy discussion.
In the description of amazon-cognito-identity-js (found here, use case 5), they show how to get the userAttributes of a CognitoUser. One of the attributes is the sub value, which you can get at for example like this:
user.getUserAttributes(function(err, attributes) {
if (err) {
// Handle error
} else {
// Do something with attributes
const sub = attributes.find(obj => obj.Name === 'sub').Value;
}
});
I couldn't find any documentation on the available user attributes either, I recommend using the debugger to look at the user attributes returned from the function.
I'm trying to come up with a metric filter expression that filters CloudWatch Logs when a special JSON key attribute is present.
Use case is the following: the application does all kinds of logging(in JSON format) and whenever it has a special JSON key(nested JSON response from third-part service), I would like to filter it.
Example logs:
{"severity":"INFO","msg":"EVENT","event":{"key1":"value1"}}
{"severity":"INFO","msg":"FooService responded","response":{"response_code":800}}
Filter patterns that I've tried that don't work:
{ $.response }
{ $.response = *}
{ $.response = "*"}
{ $.response EXISTS }
{ $.response IS TRUE }
{ $.response NOT NULL }
{ $.response != NULL }
Expected filtering result:
{"severity":"INFO","msg":"FooService responded","response":{"response_code":800}}
{ $.response EXISTS } does the opposite of what I expect(returns the 1st line rather than then 2nd) but I'm not sure how to negate it.
Reference material: Filter and pattern syntax # CloudWatch User Guide
I haven't found a good solution.
But I did find one at least.
If you search for a key being != a specific value, it seems to do a null check on it.
So if you say:
{$.response != "something_no_one_should_have_ever_saved_this_response_as"}
Then you get all entries where response exists in your json, and where it's not your string (hopefully all of the valid entries)
Definitly not a clean solution, but it seems to be pretty functional
I don't have a solution to the task of finding records where a field exists. Indeed, the linked document in the question specifically calls this out as not supported.
but
If we simply reverse our logic this becomes a more tractable problem. Looking at your data, you want All records where there's a response key but that could also be stated as All records where there isn't an events key.
This means you could accomplish the task with {$.event NOT EXISTS}. Of course, this becomes more complicated the more types of log messages you get (I had to chain three different NOT EXISTS queries for my use case) but it does solve the problem.
https://github.com/dialogflow/fulfillment-regex-nodejs
shows an easy way to perform a regex validation, however I haven't succeeded in creating one for email addresses.
from the original regex i changed the pattern to [^\s]*#[a-z0-9.-]
changed the dialogflow parameter to email with $email and kept the rest the same.
function validateEmployeeID (agent) {
// get the employee ID parameter from the request header received from Dialogflow
let email = agent.parameters.email;
let pattern = /[^\s]*#[a-z0-9.-]/;
if (email.match(pattern) !== null)
{ agent.add(`Email is wrong, please provide a valid email address.`); }
else { agent.add(agent.request_.body.queryResult.fulfillmentText); }
}
If you just want to create a regex for email validation then there are lots of links available.
You may try the below one from here.
/[A-Z0-9._%+-]+#[A-Z0-9-]+.+.[A-Z]{2,4}/igm
and test it online here
after some research, I have had success with this regex
^[a-zA-Z0-9.!#$%&'*+\/=?^_`{|}~-]+#[a-zA-Z0-9](?:[a-zA-Z0-9-]{0,61}[a-zA-Z0-9])?(?:\.[a-zA-Z0-9](?:[a-zA-Z0-9-]{0,61}[a-zA-Z0-9])?)*$
more info here for others interested; https://blog.dialogflow.com/post/validate-entities-using-regular-expressions-in-fulfillment/
can anyone help me, I am almost new in Postman.
my issue is as follow:
I send a POST request and get a message asresponse:
{
"errorCode": 1000,
"errorDescription": "Account is not verified by Admin!"
}
this message is already saved in a var named "messageAccountIsnotVerified"
when I try to use comparison in postman tets script and compare the message with the expected string is working fine:
pm.test("test", function () {
var jsonData = pm.response.json();
pm.expect(jsonData.errorCode).to.eql(1000);
pm.expect(jsonData.errorDescription).to.eql("Account is not verified by Admin!");
});
But When I try to save the String text "Account is not verified by Admin!" in a variable named: messageAccountIsnotVerified
and try to make the same comparison
pm.test("test", function () {
var jsonData = pm.response.json();
pm.expect(jsonData.errorCode).to.eql(1000);
pm.expect(jsonData.errorDescription).to.eql("messageAccountIsnotVerified");
});
or
pm.test("test", function () {
var jsonData = pm.response.json();
var message = pm.environment.get("messageAccountIsnotVerified");
pm.expect(jsonData.errorCode).to.eql(1000);
pm.expect(jsonData.errorDescription).to.eql(message);
});
it failed with error:
test | AssertionError: expected 'Account is not verified by Admin!' to deeply equal 'messageAccountIsnotVerified'
Can someone explain to me
1. what does the "deeply equal" mean and
2. what do I wrong and
3. how can I use the assertion by using the variable
Thanks for any Hint
Just additional Info: I have the same issue when I compare email with
# sign in another message - so I assume may be something to do with special chars
You need to get the variable in the following way:
pm.expect(jsonData.errorDescription).to.deep.equal(pm.environment.get("messageAccountIsnotVerified"))
.to.deep.equal can be used to reference something further down in a nested object.
Add .deep earlier in the chain to use deep equality instead. See the deep-eql project page for info on the deep equality algorithm: https://github.com/chaijs/deep-eql.
Looking at the response body you posted { "errorCode": 1000, "errorDescription": "Account is not verified by Admin!" }, I don't see a problem with the first test but for it to complain about deep equal then this response is probably no exactly as you posted.
You could reduce this all down again if you wanted too:
pm.test("test", () => {
pm.expect(pm.response.json()).to.deep.equal({"errorCode": 1000, "errorDescription": "Account is not verified by Admin!"})
});
That test would do the same as above.
let string = pm.response.json()
pm.expect(string).to.equal("String from Response")
I've kinda been struggling with this for some time; let's see if somebody can help me out.
Although it's not explicitly said in the Readme, ember-data provides somewhat validations support. You can see that on some parts of the code and documentation:
https://github.com/emberjs/data/blob/master/packages/ember-data/lib/system/model/states.js#L411
https://github.com/emberjs/data/blob/master/packages/ember-data/lib/system/model/states.js#L529
The REST adapter doesn't add validations support on itself, but I found out that if I add something like this in the ajax calls, I can put the model on a "invalid" state with the errors object that came from the server side:
error: function(xhr){
var data = Ember.$.parseJSON(xhr.responseText);
store.recordWasInvalid(record, data.errors);
}
So I can easily to the following:
var transaction = App.store.transaction();
var record = transaction.createRecord(App.Post);
record.set('someProperty', 'invalid value');
transaction.commit()
// This makes the validation fail
record.set('someProperty', 'a valid value');
transaction.commit();
// This doesn't trigger the commit again.
The thing is: As you see, transactions don't try to recommit. This is explained here and here.
So the thing is: If I can't reuse a commit, how should I handle this? I kinda suspect that has something to do to the fact I'm asyncronously putting the model to the invalid state - by reading the documentation, it seems like is something meant for client-side validations. In this case, how should I use them?
I have a pending pull request that should fix this
https://github.com/emberjs/data/pull/539
I tried Javier's answer, but I get "Invalid Path" when doing any record.set(...) with the record in invalid state. What I found worked was:
// with the record in invalid state
record.send('becameValid');
record.set('someProperty', 'a valid value');
App.store.commit();
Alternatively, it seems that if I call record.get(...) first then subsequent record.set(...) calls work. This is probably a bug. But the above work-around will work in general for being able to re-commit the same record even without changing any properties. (Of course, if the properties are still invalid it will just fail again.)
this may seem to be an overly simple answer, but why not create a new transaction and add the pre-existing record to it? i'm also trying to figure out an error handling approach.
also you should probably consider writing this at the store level rather than the adapter level for the sake of re-use.
For some unknown reason, the record becomes part of the store default transaction. This code works for me:
var transaction = App.store.transaction();
var record = transaction.createRecord(App.Post);
record.set('someProperty', 'invalid value');
transaction.commit()
record.set('someProperty', 'a valid value');
App.store.commit(); // The record is created in backend
The problem is that after the first failure, you must always use the App.store.commit() with the problems it has.
Give a look at this gist. Its the pattern that i use in my projects.
https://gist.github.com/danielgatis/5550982
#josepjaume
Take a look at https://github.com/esbanarango/ember-model-validator.
Example:
import Model, { attr } from '#ember-data/model';
import { modelValidator } from 'ember-model-validator';
#modelValidator
export default class MyModel extends Model {
#attr('string') fullName;
#attr('string') fruit;
#attr('string') favoriteColor;
validations = {
fullName: {
presence: true
},
fruit: {
presence: true
},
favoriteColor: {
color: true
}
};
}