I am building a sync app with a customprovider and a filesyncprovider. I based my provider on this example:
https://code.msdn.microsoft.com/File-Sync-with-Simple-c497bf87
The problem that I see is that MOVES or RENAMES are not recognized by the Filesyncprovider as such. A MOVE is translated into a DELETE and CREATE. If I get an UPDATE request into the CustomSyncprovider, I can tell if it is a move or a rename and therefore react correctly.
Do I have to change something in my Customprovider to allow the Filesyncprovider to recognize the change correctly, or is the filesyncprovider not able to make this distinction?
My custom sync provider is a FullEnumeration Sync Provider. Therefore the Filesyncprovider does not have the necessary information to recognize a move or rename. To implement that, my custom sync provider would have to be implemented as a KnowledgeSyncProvider.
Related
I am doing a tutorial on Google Certified Associate Cloud Engineer 2020, which used to be on Udemy and now is on Cloud Guru. I am watching a video on GCS: Google Cloud Storage.
At one point tutor, while using GCP User Interface, is renaming a file. In the window Rename Object, a great feature shows gsutil equivalent.
This gsutil equivalent is not showing on my GCP User Interface. Is there any option to turn this on, or is this a feature that no longer exists?
I have tried to look at different options in User Interface, but I cannot find the option I am looking for. I have tried to Google this, but most things that come up are more related to gsutil itself rather than User Interface.
Related to your question if you have to activate something to be able to get this feature, the answer is that you don’t have to activate anything as there is no way to activate it because this is a feature from the GCP UI interface that has been changed since the video that you used as a reference was released.
If you want to get the same gsutil command you would be able if you click on move option instead of using rename. This will open another window where you would find the same gsutil command as you found in the image that you shared.
The reason why the same command is present in the move option as it was in the rename is because in the end a rename the same as a move, which is in fact a 2-step process: a copy and a delete, as can be seen in the steps to rename using the REST API as described in the docs.
In the case that you want this feature to be again available on the GCP UI you can always open a Feature Request in the Issue Tracker asking for it.
Rename feature is also available in GCP Console Just Chek following screenshots
Check This :
https://i.stack.imgur.com/b8pyW.png
I'm using an AWS Lambda function to kick off a build in AWS CodeBuild when a Pull Request is created or updated in AWS CodeComimit, which is working well.
However, I'd like to be able to prevent the merging of that Pull Request in to the master branch of the repository, until the latest build for that PR has completed successfully.
Does anyone know if there's a way that can be done in AWS? E.g. so that the Merge button is disabled or not available, like when not enough approvers have been obtained?
I was looking into this myself and from what I understand, it is currently not possible to directly create this rule, but I think it should be doable with a different approach.
Instead of requiring a custom rule that disables merging (which doesn't exist today), you could make it so that the PR requires review from a specific IAM user. With that, you could probably use a fixed "build" user, and fire an automatic approval request for the PR once the build finishes successfully. This will in turn "approve" that rule in the PR and allow it to be merged after the build succeeds.
Since approval can be done via the CLI interface, I'm sure it should also be possible via API. For example, you could use this API to automatically mark any given PR as approved by the calling user, then ensure the service that is calling it is the same user registered in the "build" approval template.
Besides the HTTP WebApi, there are also other ways to call into these CodeCommit actions, like the AWS SDK library (C# example: https://www.nuget.org/packages/AWSSDK.CodeCommit/).
I'm using a free Microsoft Account (#outlook.com) on VSTS. I created my first proyect, configure it and make it works with CI/CD. Now, I'm creating a new proyect and I want to add a build definition, but I don't know why, all the options appears disabled.
No matter what I do, the Save button remains disabled.
¿There is a limited number of projects to use with CI/CD per account?
Thank's in advance
This is a very strange behavior, but finally I found the solution: in the querystring params you need to remove the "path" parameter (path=%5C)
Reference: https://developercommunity.visualstudio.com/content/problem/203956/build-definition-buttons-are-greyed-out.html
If I create a HIT in the Sandbox via Mturk's GUI, is it possible to transfer it to the Production site, or do I have to re-create the HIT manually in the Production site?
In particular, is it possible, to download .input, .question and .properties for HIT created via GUI in the sandbox, in order to use them to generate the same HIT on the Production site via the CLT?
The obvious way seems to be using Mturk HIT's layouts. However, reading the doc, I don't see how/ know whether it is possible to to do this using the CLT. The doc on HITLayoutParameter requires using CreateHIT, but this is not an available command in the CLT (only have loadHITs).
I have seen other questions Creating mTurk HIT from Layout with parameters using boto and python and Create a MTurk HIT from an existing template about ways to do it with boto but I am still wondering whether that's doable with the CLT.
The live and sandbox modes are completely separate and no transfer is possible from one to the other.
You will need to implement this programmatically by storing the specs of the sandbox HIT and creating a live HIT.
Another option is to use a service like TurkPrime.com which allows you to copy HITs from sandbox to live mode
I'm using mercurial-server to manage my repositories in the enterprise server. I created a repository for each user and I wanted each of them could give access to another, ie, each user would have access control to your projects in your repository. But in mercurial-server documentation I see that only administrators can give that kind of access.
Is that way how it works or gives to circumvent it somehow through the mercurial-server or even own mercurial(hg)?
If you want to delegate the access rights management to your users, they would need to have access to the /hgadmin repository and they should be able to modify the /hgadmin/access.conf file where the fine grained access control is located.
To my knowledge there is no way (yet) to use Mercurial-server to have silos of access-control, where a user could grant access to his/her own repository but not to other's repositories. However you should be able to develop such an extension to the system: with a hook that would extract relevant rights from, e.g., <user-repo>/admin/access.conf and copy them in a zone where another hook or a cron would select only lines concerning the <user-repo> zone (with a sed or perl or whatever you'd like), then update the real access.conf file, and finally commit and push it.
Hope it'll help.