I have an INSERT INTO Logfile in onSessionStart, and an UPDATE in onSessionEnd.
I've test it manually by calling onSessionEnd from elsewhere within the Application.cfc, so I know that it is working.
But that's the only time it's ever fired.
I wonder if onSessionEnd is never being fired.
I got enough upvotes on my comment, I figured I'd make it an answer for how to debug onSessionEnd methods.
First off, you need to remember that if you call onSessionEnd directly, it's being called during a regular request context. This means it has access to variables that it won't normally have access to if it's being called during the regular session end. This means that testing "manually by calling onSessionEnd" isn't a valid way to test the method.
To that end, the only way to reliably debug an onSessionEnd method is with judicious use of the cflog tag. You need to add cflog entries to flag when the method runs, you need to have error catching, to log errors or dump out cfcatch scopes to a file for review. You also need to make sure that anything you're referencing in the method is passed in via the SessionScope and ApplicationScope arguments, and that you're not referencing any scopes other than Arguments and Server. See livedocs for reference.
Hopefully that helps you find the source of your issue.
I'd add that you even can't call other Application.cfc functions from within onSessionEnd method.
Related
I'm making a website right now and need to use django-tracking2 for analytics. Everything works but I would like to allow users to opt out and I haven't seen any options for that. I was thinking modifying the middleware portion may work but honestly, I don't know how to go about that yet since I haven't written middleware before.
I tried writing a script to check a cookie called no_track and if it wasn't set, I would set it to false for default tracking and if they reject, it sets no_track to True but I had no idea where to implement it (other than the middle ware, when I tried that the server told me to contact the administrator). I was thinking maybe I could use signals to prevent the user being tracked but then that would slow down the webpage since it would have to deal with preventing a new Visitor instance on each page (because it would likely keep making new instances since it would seem like a new user). Could I subclass the Visitor class and modify __init__ to do a check for the cookie and either let it save or don't.
Thanks for any answers, if I find a solution I'll edit the post or post and accept the answer just in case someone else needs this.
I made a function in my tools file (holds all functions used throughout the project to make my life easier) to get and set a session key. Inside the VisitorTrackingMiddleware I used the function _should_track() and placed a check that looks for the session key (after _should_track() checks that sessions is installed and before all other checks), with the check_session() function in my tools file, if it doesn't exist, the function creates it with the default of True (Track the user until they accept or reject) and returns an HttpResponse (left over from trying the cookie method).
When I used the cookie method, the firefox console said the cookie will expire so I just switched to sessions another reason is that django-tracking2 runs on it.
It seems to work very well and it didn't have a very large impact on load times, every time a request is made, that function runs and my debug tells me if it's tracking me or not and all the buttons work through AJAX. I want to run some tests to see if this does indeed work and if so, maybe I'll submit a pull request to django-tracking2 just in case someone else wants to use it.
A Big advantage to this is that you can allow users to change their minds if they want or you can reprompt at user sign up depending on if they accepted or not. with the way check_session() is set up, I can use it in template tags and class methods as well.
I have a function inside another function that is supposedly getting called, according to my expect(Parse.User.Login).toHaveBeenCalled() line, but there are some console statements inside the callback to that which aren't showing up.
Is there some type of dependency I'm missing on my unit test causing the callback not to have called? I think it is getting to the server, because it tells me I need a Parse.initialize with the application keys if that's not present.
How do I resolve it?
It just occurred to me, maybe that's something in Parse.js telling me I need the Parse.initialize(keys,keys). I changed the parse keys to nonsense, and its not telling me they're wrong, so it must be that parse isn't being touched at all. No request is being sent to the server.
I've been putting up a few questions about this, but now I guess this can't be done with Karma-jasmine -- at least the way the app is set up right now. It's depending on a web service to give the errors, instead of having an angular directive set up up front to detect the errors in the fields beforehand.
I'm a newbie at this obviously, or I would have recognized this sooner:
This type of testing, where you are depending on responses from the server and that's that, should be delegated to E2E tests.
Meaning, here what am I supposed to test that wouldn't be just hardcoding the desired response right into the jasmine Spy? What would that do to just set the rootScope to a user attribute? Maybe, if state.go changed the view to another page, and then acted on the $rootScope data, this would make sense. But for now, there's no point. I'm not designing the next step, nor do I know what it is at the moment, so I can only sit back.
I'm running my applications on CF 9. I created a CFC to concentrate my cookie handling instead of all the tags strewn about. It is simple. It has two attributes (name, value), and has 5 methods (setCookie, deleteCookie, verifyCookie, clearAllCookies, and init).
Since I wanted this method to be available throughout the application, I put this code in the onApplicationStart method of my application.cfc file:
application.oCookie = createObject("com.mycookie").init();
When I need to set a cookie in any code file I just call it like so:
application.oCookie.name="testCookieName";
application.oCookie.value="testCookieValue";
application.oCookie.setCookie();
My question is: Do I need to put a lock on this code each time I do this? If two separate users were to be on pages accessing this code at the same exact instant, can I end up with mixed up cookie values being set?
To make your oCookie thread-safe, it has to be a singleton (with no state) that only acts as a thin layer to the <cfcookie> or the cookie scope.
Therefore you should design your com.mycookie so that it accepts application.oCookie.setCookie(name, value) instead. And make sure you var-scope everything and don't store anything in the variables scope of mycookie.
And I don't think you need to use cflock.
If you haven't already, you may want to checkout WireBox.
I am writing a provider hosted SharePoint 2013 application. I'm using SharePoint online.
Since the people picker isn't supported in this scenario, I need to build my own. I found the SearchPrincipals method. That seems like exactly what I'm looking for, but no matter what I try, the method is returning with 0 results.
What little information I've found around this method suggests that the problem is usually a permissions issue, but the user that I'm logged in as is a Site Collection Administrator (ClientContext.Web.CurrentUser.IsSiteAdmin is true), so that shouldn't be the case with me.
I've tried passing in virtually every combination of PrincipalType and PrincipalSource, even ones that didn't make sense. I've also tried passing in ClientContext.Web.SiteUsers for the scope, and also null, both of which I've seen used in my searches, and that didn't turn up any results either.
Any help would be appreciated!
I figured it out. The ClientContext of the CSOM (Client Side Object Model) allows the developer to make multiple --unrelated -- queries. It queues up these queries and does not execute them until ExecuteQuery is called. Even though SearchPrincipals is a static method off of the Utility class, it still translates the method call into a query and queues it up. The method will always return an empty collection, but once you call ExecuteQuery on the ClientContext, that collection is then filled with the results of the search.
Also, another problem that I ran into immediately afterwards was that I was getting an error that seemed completely unrelated to my query when I called ExecuteQuery. It turns out that there was code that previously executed that queued up some queries, but it never executed them, so when I called ExecuteQuery, it executed those queries as well, and one of those was erroring. If you are getting an unexpected error, it's a good idea to see if there are other queued queries that haven't been executed yet. You can check the boolean property HasPendingRequest to help determine this.
Hopefully this answer saves other people a lot of time!
I have gone through the (painful) process of writing a custom template tag for use in Django. It is registered as an inclusion_tag so that it renders a template. However, this tag breaks as soon as I try to change something.
I've tried changing the number of parameters and correspondingly changing the parameters when it's called. It's clear the new tag code isn't being loaded, because an error is thrown stating that there is a mismatch in the number of parameters, and it's evident that it's attempting to call the old function.
The same problem occurs if I try to change the name of the template being rendered and correspondingly change the name of the template on disk. It continues to try to call the old template. I've tried clearing old .pyc files with no luck.
Overall, the system is acting as though it's caching the template tags, likely due to the register command. I have dug through endless threads trying to find out if this is so, but all could find it James Bennett stating here that register doesn't do anything. Please help!
I have gone through the (painful) process of writing a custom template tag for use in Django
I agree that the process for writing the template tag in django is more elaborate than it needs to be.
But let me point you towards some of the third party apps, that when installed, a template tag is just another python function (or class).
http://github.com/alex/django-templatetag-sugar
http://github.com/codysoyland/django-template-repl
Firstly, I can't imagine what's complicated about inclusion tags. Writing a completely custom tag from scratch, yes: that's complicated. But inclusion tags are simply three lines of code and a template - what's complicated about that?
Secondly, all Python code in your Django project is loaded once by the server [*], and remains until it is restarted. The dev server usually detects changes and restarts itself to reload the code, but this doesn't always work. You should get into the habit of checking the console to see that it does restart, and doing it manually if necessary. Note that this has nothing whatsoever to do with caching.
[*] strictly speaking, once per process, but the dev server is single-process anyway.
In case anybody else encounters this: the exact caching mechanism is unclear, but restarting the django dev server fixes the problem.