Search Results

Search found 2229 results on 90 pages for 'conditions'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 9/90 | < Previous Page | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  | Next Page >

  • Les conditions de travail chez Foxconn toujours aussi mauvaises d'après une ONG, un concurrent d'Apple pourrait en profiter

    Les conditions de travail chez Foxconn seraient toujours aussi mauvaises D'après le China Labour Bulletin, la polémique autour du fournisseur d'Apple peut-elle affecter la marque ? Le sous-traitant informatique Foxconn continue de faire parler de lui. Ce géant taïwanais, qui emploie plus de 1.2 millions de collaborateurs, assemble les produits de grands noms de l'électronique à l'instar de Apple, HP, Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft ou encore Amazon. Une vague de suicides à répétition avait placé Foxconn sous le feu des projecteurs en 2010 et 3 employés ont trouvé la mort en juin dernier dans une explosion à l'usine de Chengdu. Foxconn a vu sa réputation s'écrouler aux Etats-Unis ...

    Read the article

  • Les conditions d'utilisation de l'App Store seraient incompatibles avec la licence GPL, l'application libre VLC vient d'en faire les frais

    Les conditions d'utilisation de l'App Store seraient incompatibles avec la licence GPL, l'application libre VLC vient d'en faire les frais On vous a offert un iPhone à Noël et vous vouliez y installer un lecteur multi codecs gratuit sur votre terminal ? Trop tard. L'application VLC vient d'être supprimée de l'App Store, où elle est désormais "persona non grata". Ceux qui possèdent déjà le logiciel pourront en revanche le conserver. Quel a été le problème ? L'un des développeurs ayant participé à la création de VLC, Rémi Denis-Courmont, s'est indigné auprès d'Apple du non-respect de la licence GPL du produit, puisqu'elle implique que l'utilisateur puisse copier, distribuer et modifier à sa convenance le logi...

    Read the article

  • A MongoDB find() that matches when all $and conditions match the same sub-document?

    - by MichaelOryl
    If I have a set of MongoDB documents like the following, what can I do to get a find() result that only returns the families who have 2 pets who all like liver? Here is what I expected to work: db.delegation.find({pets:2, $and: [{'foods.liver': true}, {'foods.allLike': true}] }) Here is the document collection: { "_id" : ObjectId("5384888e380efca06276cf5e"), "family": "smiths", "pets": 2, "foods" : [ { "name" : "chicken", "allLike" : true, }, { "name" : "liver", "allLike" : false, } ] }, { "_id" : ObjectId("4384888e380efca06276cf50"), "family": "jones", "pets": 2, "foods" : [ { "name" : "chicken", "allLike" : true, }, { "name" : "liver", "allLike" : true, } ] } What I end up getting is both families because they both have at least one food marked as true for allLike. It seems that the two conditions in the $and are true if any foods sub-document matches, but what I want is the two conditions to match for the conditions as a pair. As is, I get the Jones family back (as I want) but also Smith (which I don't). Smith gets returned because the chicken sub-doc has allLike set to true and the liver sub-doc has a name of 'liver'. The conditions are matching across separate foods sub-docs. I want them to match as a pair on a foods document. This code is not the real use case, obviously. I have one, but I've simplified it to protect the innocent...

    Read the article

  • SQL SERVER – Identifying guest User using Policy Based Management

    - by pinaldave
    If you are following my recent blog posts, you may have noticed that I’ve been writing a lot about Guest User in SQL Server. Here are all the blog posts which I have written on this subject: SQL SERVER – Disable Guest Account – Serious Security Issue SQL SERVER – Force Removing User from Database – Fix: Error: Could not drop login ‘test’ as the user is currently logged in SQL SERVER – Detecting guest User Permissions – guest User Access Status SQL SERVER – guest User and MSDB Database – Enable guest User on MSDB Database One of the requests I received was whether we could create a policy that would prevent users unable guest user in user databases. Well, here is a quick tutorial to answer this. Let us see how quickly we can do it. Requirements Check if the guest user is disabled in all the user-created databases. Exclude master, tempdb and msdb database for guest user validation. We will create the following conditions based on the above two requirements: If the name of the user is ‘guest’ If the user has connect (@hasDBAccess) permission in the database Check in All user databases, except: master, tempDB and msdb Once we create two conditions, we will create a policy which will validate the conditions. Condition 1: Is the User Guest? Expand the Database >> Management >> Policy Management >> Conditions Right click on the Conditions, and click on “New Condition…”. First we will create a condition where we will validate if the user name is ‘guest’, and if it’s so, then we will further validate if it has DB access. Check the image for the necessary configuration for condition: Facet: User Expression: @Name = ‘guest’ Condition 2: Does the User have DBAccess? Expand the Database >> Management >> Policy Management >> Conditions Right click on Conditions and click on “New Condition…”. Now we will validate if the user has DB access. Check the image for necessary configuration for condition: Facet: User Expression: @hasDBAccess = False Condition 3: Exclude Databases Expand the Database >> Management >> Policy Management >> Conditions Write click on Conditions and click on “New Condition…” Now we will create condition where we will validate if database name is master, tempdb or msdb and if database name is any of them, we will not validate our first one condition with them. Check the image for necessary configuration for condition: Facet: Database Expression: @Name != ‘msdb’ AND @Name != ‘tempdb’ AND @Name != ‘master’ The next step will be creating a policy which will enforce these conditions. Creating a Policy Right click on Policies and click “New Policy…” Here, we justify what condition we want to validate against what the target is. Condition: Has User DBAccess Target Database: Every Database except (master, tempdb and MSDB) Target User: Every User in Target Database with name ‘guest’ Now we have options for two evaluation modes: 1) On Demand and 2) On Schedule We will select On Demand in this example; however, you can change the mode to On Schedule through the drop down menu, and select the interval of the evaluation of the policy. Evaluate the Policies We have selected OnDemand as our policy evaluation mode. We will now evaluate by means of executing Evaluate policy. Click on Evaluate and it will give the following result: The result demonstrates that one of the databases has a policy violation. Username guest is enabled in AdventureWorks database. You can disable the guest user by running the following code in AdventureWorks database. USE AdventureWorks; REVOKE CONNECT FROM guest; Once you run above query, you can already evaluate the policy again. Notice that the policy violation is fixed now. You can change the method of the evaluation policy to On Schedule and validate policy on interval. You can check the history of the policy and detect the violation. Quiz I have created three conditions to check if the guest user has database access or not. Now I want to ask you: Is it possible to do the same with 2 conditions? If yes, HOW? If no, WHY NOT? Reference: Pinal Dave (http://blog.sqlauthority.com) Filed under: Best Practices, CodeProject, PostADay, SQL, SQL Authority, SQL Query, SQL Server, SQL Tips and Tricks, SQLServer, T SQL, Technology Tagged: Policy Management

    Read the article

  • Configuring Fed Authentication Methods in OIF / IdP

    - by Damien Carru
    In this article, I will provide examples on how to configure OIF/IdP to map OAM Authentication Schemes to Federation Authentication Methods, based on the concepts introduced in my previous entry. I will show examples for the three protocols supported by OIF: SAML 2.0 SSO SAML 1.1 SSO OpenID 2.0 Enjoy the reading! Configuration As I mentioned in my previous article, mapping Federation Authentication Methods to OAM Authentication Schemes is protocol dependent, since the methods are defined in the various protocols (SAML 2.0, SAML 1.1, OpenID 2.0). As such, the WLST commands to set those mappings will involve: Either the SP Partner Profile and affect all Partners referencing that profile, which do not override the Federation Authentication Method to OAM Authentication Scheme mappings Or the SP Partner entry, which will only affect the SP Partner It is important to note that if an SP Partner is configured to define one or more Federation Authentication Method to OAM Authentication Scheme mappings, then all the mappings defined in the SP Partner Profile will be ignored. WLST Commands The two OIF WLST commands that can be used to define mapping Federation Authentication Methods to OAM Authentication Schemes are: addSPPartnerProfileAuthnMethod() to define a mapping on an SP Partner Profile, taking as parameters: The name of the SP Partner Profile The Federation Authentication Method The OAM Authentication Scheme name addSPPartnerAuthnMethod() to define a mapping on an SP Partner , taking as parameters: The name of the SP Partner The Federation Authentication Method The OAM Authentication Scheme name Note: I will discuss in a subsequent article the other parameters of those commands. In the next sections, I will show examples on how to use those methods: For SAML 2.0, I will configure the SP Partner Profile, that will apply all the mappings to SP Partners referencing this profile, unless they override mapping definition For SAML 1.1, I will configure the SP Partner. For OpenID 2.0, I will configure the SP/RP Partner SAML 2.0 Test Setup In this setup, OIF is acting as an IdP and is integrated with a remote SAML 2.0 SP partner identified by AcmeSP. In this test, I will perform Federation SSO with OIF/IdP configured to: Use LDAPScheme as the Authentication Scheme Use BasicScheme as the Authentication Scheme Map BasicSessionScheme  to  the urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:Password Federation Authentication Method Use OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme as the Authentication Scheme Map OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme to  the urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport Federation Authentication Method LDAPScheme as Authentication Scheme Using the OOTB settings regarding user authentication in OAM, the user will be challenged via a FORM based login page based on the LDAPScheme. Also the default Federation Authentication Method mappings configuration maps only the urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport to LDAPScheme (also marked as the default scheme used for authentication), FAAuthScheme, BasicScheme and BasicFAScheme. After authentication via FORM, OIF/IdP would issue an Assertion similar to: <samlp:Response ...>    <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>    <samlp:Status>        <samlp:StatusCode Value="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:status:Success"/>    </samlp:Status>    <saml:Assertion ...>        <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>        <dsig:Signature>            ...        </dsig:Signature>        <saml:Subject>            <saml:NameID ...>[email protected]</saml:NameID>            <saml:SubjectConfirmation Method="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:cm:bearer">                <saml:SubjectConfirmationData .../>            </saml:SubjectConfirmation>        </saml:Subject>        <saml:Conditions ...>            <saml:AudienceRestriction>                <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp</saml:Audience>            </saml:AudienceRestriction>        </saml:Conditions>        <saml:AuthnStatement AuthnInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" SessionIndex="id-6i-Dm0yB-HekG6cejktwcKIFMzYE8Yrmqwfd0azz" SessionNotOnOrAfter="2014-03-21T21:53:55Z">            <saml:AuthnContext>                <saml:AuthnContextClassRef>                   urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport                </saml:AuthnContextClassRef>            </saml:AuthnContext>        </saml:AuthnStatement>    </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> BasicScheme as Authentication Scheme For this test, I will switch the default Authentication Scheme for the SP Partner Profile to BasicScheme instead of LDAPScheme. I will use the OIF WLST setSPPartnerProfileDefaultScheme() command and specify which scheme to be used as the default for the SP Partner Profile referenced by AcmeSP (which is saml20-sp-partner-profile in this case: getFedPartnerProfile("AcmeSP", "sp") ): Enter the WLST environment by executing:$IAM_ORACLE_HOME/common/bin/wlst.sh Connect to the WLS Admin server:connect() Navigate to the Domain Runtime branch:domainRuntime() Execute the setSPPartnerProfileDefaultScheme() command:setSPPartnerProfileDefaultScheme("saml20-sp-partner-profile", "BasicScheme") Exit the WLST environment:exit() The user will now be challenged via HTTP Basic Authentication defined in the BasicScheme for AcmeSP. Also, as noted earlier, the default Federation Authentication Method mappings configuration maps only the urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport to LDAPScheme (also marked as the default scheme used for authentication), FAAuthScheme, BasicScheme and BasicFAScheme. After authentication via HTTP Basic Authentication, OIF/IdP would issue an Assertion similar to: <samlp:Response ...>    <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>    <samlp:Status>        <samlp:StatusCode Value="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:status:Success"/>    </samlp:Status>    <saml:Assertion ...>        <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>        <dsig:Signature>            ...        </dsig:Signature>        <saml:Subject>            <saml:NameID ...>[email protected]</saml:NameID>            <saml:SubjectConfirmation Method="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:cm:bearer">                <saml:SubjectConfirmationData .../>            </saml:SubjectConfirmation>        </saml:Subject>        <saml:Conditions ...>            <saml:AudienceRestriction>                <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp</saml:Audience>            </saml:AudienceRestriction>        </saml:Conditions>        <saml:AuthnStatement AuthnInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" SessionIndex="id-6i-Dm0yB-HekG6cejktwcKIFMzYE8Yrmqwfd0azz" SessionNotOnOrAfter="2014-03-21T21:53:55Z">            <saml:AuthnContext>                <saml:AuthnContextClassRef>                   urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport                </saml:AuthnContextClassRef>            </saml:AuthnContext>        </saml:AuthnStatement>    </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> Mapping BasicScheme To change the Federation Authentication Method mapping for the BasicScheme to urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:Password instead of urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport for the saml20-sp-partner-profile SAML 2.0 SP Partner Profile (the profile to which my AcmeSP Partner is bound to), I will execute the addSPPartnerProfileAuthnMethod() method: Enter the WLST environment by executing:$IAM_ORACLE_HOME/common/bin/wlst.sh Connect to the WLS Admin server:connect() Navigate to the Domain Runtime branch:domainRuntime() Execute the addSPPartnerProfileAuthnMethod() command:addSPPartnerProfileAuthnMethod("saml20-sp-partner-profile", "urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:Password", "BasicScheme") Exit the WLST environment:exit() After authentication via HTTP Basic Authentication, OIF/IdP would now issue an Assertion similar to (see that the AuthnContextClassRef was changed from PasswordProtectedTransport to Password): <samlp:Response ...>    <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>    <samlp:Status>        <samlp:StatusCode Value="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:status:Success"/>    </samlp:Status>    <saml:Assertion ...>        <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>        <dsig:Signature>            ...        </dsig:Signature>        <saml:Subject>            <saml:NameID ...>[email protected]</saml:NameID>            <saml:SubjectConfirmation Method="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:cm:bearer">                <saml:SubjectConfirmationData .../>            </saml:SubjectConfirmation>        </saml:Subject>        <saml:Conditions ...>            <saml:AudienceRestriction>                <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp</saml:Audience>            </saml:AudienceRestriction>        </saml:Conditions>        <saml:AuthnStatement AuthnInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" SessionIndex="id-6i-Dm0yB-HekG6cejktwcKIFMzYE8Yrmqwfd0azz" SessionNotOnOrAfter="2014-03-21T21:53:55Z">            <saml:AuthnContext>                <saml:AuthnContextClassRef>                   urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:Password                </saml:AuthnContextClassRef>            </saml:AuthnContext>        </saml:AuthnStatement>    </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme as Authentication Scheme For this test, I will switch the default Authentication Scheme for the SP Partner Profile to OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme instead of BasicScheme. I will use the OIF WLST setSPPartnerProfileDefaultScheme() command and specify which scheme to be used as the default for the SP Partner Profile referenced by AcmeSP (which is saml20-sp-partner-profile in this case: getFedPartnerProfile("AcmeSP", "sp") ): Enter the WLST environment by executing:$IAM_ORACLE_HOME/common/bin/wlst.sh Connect to the WLS Admin server:connect() Navigate to the Domain Runtime branch:domainRuntime() Execute the setSPPartnerProfileDefaultScheme() command:setSPPartnerProfileDefaultScheme("saml20-sp-partner-profile", "OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme") Exit the WLST environment:exit() The user will now be challenged via FORM defined in the OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme for AcmeSP. Contrarily to LDAPScheme and BasicScheme, the OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme is not mapped by default to any Federation Authentication Methods. As such, OIF/IdP will not be able to find a Federation Authentication Method and will set the method in the SAML Assertion to the OAM Authentication Scheme name. After authentication via FORM, OIF/IdP would issue an Assertion similar to (see the AuthnContextClassRef set to OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme): <samlp:Response ...>    <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>    <samlp:Status>        <samlp:StatusCode Value="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:status:Success"/>    </samlp:Status>    <saml:Assertion ...>        <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>        <dsig:Signature>            ...        </dsig:Signature>        <saml:Subject>            <saml:NameID ...>[email protected]</saml:NameID>            <saml:SubjectConfirmation Method="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:cm:bearer">                <saml:SubjectConfirmationData .../>            </saml:SubjectConfirmation>        </saml:Subject>        <saml:Conditions ...>            <saml:AudienceRestriction>                <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp</saml:Audience>            </saml:AudienceRestriction>        </saml:Conditions>        <saml:AuthnStatement AuthnInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" SessionIndex="id-6i-Dm0yB-HekG6cejktwcKIFMzYE8Yrmqwfd0azz" SessionNotOnOrAfter="2014-03-21T21:53:55Z">            <saml:AuthnContext>                <saml:AuthnContextClassRef> OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme                </saml:AuthnContextClassRef>            </saml:AuthnContext>        </saml:AuthnStatement>    </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> Mapping OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme To add the OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme  to the Federation Authentication Method urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport mapping, I will execute the addSPPartnerProfileAuthnMethod() method: Enter the WLST environment by executing:$IAM_ORACLE_HOME/common/bin/wlst.sh Connect to the WLS Admin server:connect() Navigate to the Domain Runtime branch:domainRuntime() Execute the addSPPartnerProfileAuthnMethod() command:addSPPartnerProfileAuthnMethod("saml20-sp-partner-profile", "urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport", "OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme") Exit the WLST environment:exit() After authentication via FORM, OIF/IdP would now issue an Assertion similar to (see that the method was changed from OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme to PasswordProtectedTransport): <samlp:Response ...>    <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>    <samlp:Status>        <samlp:StatusCode Value="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:status:Success"/>    </samlp:Status>    <saml:Assertion ...>        <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>        <dsig:Signature>            ...        </dsig:Signature>        <saml:Subject>            <saml:NameID ...>[email protected]</saml:NameID>            <saml:SubjectConfirmation Method="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:cm:bearer">                <saml:SubjectConfirmationData .../>            </saml:SubjectConfirmation>        </saml:Subject>        <saml:Conditions ...>            <saml:AudienceRestriction>                <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp</saml:Audience>            </saml:AudienceRestriction>        </saml:Conditions>        <saml:AuthnStatement AuthnInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" SessionIndex="id-6i-Dm0yB-HekG6cejktwcKIFMzYE8Yrmqwfd0azz" SessionNotOnOrAfter="2014-03-21T21:53:55Z">            <saml:AuthnContext>                <saml:AuthnContextClassRef>                   urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport                </saml:AuthnContextClassRef>            </saml:AuthnContext>        </saml:AuthnStatement>    </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> SAML 1.1 Test Setup In this setup, OIF is acting as an IdP and is integrated with a remote SAML 1.1 SP partner identified by AcmeSP. In this test, I will perform Federation SSO with OIF/IdP configured to: Use LDAPScheme as the Authentication Scheme Use OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme as the Authentication Scheme Map OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme to  the urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport Federation Authentication Method Use LDAPScheme as the Authentication Scheme Map LDAPScheme to  the urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport Federation Authentication Method LDAPScheme as Authentication Scheme Using the OOTB settings regarding user authentication in OAM, the user will be challenged via a FORM based login page based on the LDAPScheme. Also the default Federation Authentication Method mappings configuration maps only the urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:password to LDAPScheme (also marked as the default scheme used for authentication), FAAuthScheme, BasicScheme and BasicFAScheme. After authentication via FORM, OIF/IdP would issue an Assertion similar to: <samlp:Response ...>    <samlp:Status>        <samlp:StatusCode Value="samlp:Success"/>    </samlp:Status>    <saml:Assertion Issuer="https://idp.com/oam/fed" ...>        <saml:Conditions ...>            <saml:AudienceRestriction>                <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp/ssov11</saml:Audience>            </saml:AudienceRestriction>        </saml:Conditions>        <saml:AuthnStatement AuthenticationInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" AuthenticationMethod="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:password">            <saml:Subject>                <saml:NameIdentifier ...>[email protected]</saml:NameIdentifier>                <saml:SubjectConfirmation>                   <saml:ConfirmationMethod>                       urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:cm:bearer                   </saml:ConfirmationMethod>                </saml:SubjectConfirmation>            </saml:Subject>        </saml:AuthnStatement>        <dsig:Signature>            ...        </dsig:Signature>    </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme as Authentication Scheme For this test, I will switch the default Authentication Scheme for the SP Partner to OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme instead of LDAPScheme. I will use the OIF WLST setSPPartnerDefaultScheme() command and specify which scheme to be used as the default for the SP Partner: Enter the WLST environment by executing:$IAM_ORACLE_HOME/common/bin/wlst.sh Connect to the WLS Admin server:connect() Navigate to the Domain Runtime branch:domainRuntime() Execute the setSPPartnerDefaultScheme() command:setSPPartnerDefaultScheme("AcmeSP", "OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme") Exit the WLST environment:exit() The user will be challenged via FORM defined in the OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme for AcmeSP. Contrarily to LDAPScheme, the OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme is not mapped by default to any Federation Authentication Methods (in the SP Partner Profile). As such, OIF/IdP will not be able to find a Federation Authentication Method and will set the method in the SAML Assertion to the OAM Authentication Scheme name. After authentication via FORM, OIF/IdP would issue an Assertion similar to (see the AuthenticationMethod set to OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme): <samlp:Response ...>    <samlp:Status>        <samlp:StatusCode Value="samlp:Success"/>    </samlp:Status>    <saml:Assertion Issuer="https://idp.com/oam/fed" ...>        <saml:Conditions ...>            <saml:AudienceRestriction>                <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp/ssov11</saml:Audience>            </saml:AudienceRestriction>        </saml:Conditions>        <saml:AuthnStatement AuthenticationInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" AuthenticationMethod="OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme">            <saml:Subject>                <saml:NameIdentifier ...>[email protected]</saml:NameIdentifier>                <saml:SubjectConfirmation>                   <saml:ConfirmationMethod>                       urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:cm:bearer                   </saml:ConfirmationMethod>                </saml:SubjectConfirmation>            </saml:Subject>        </saml:AuthnStatement>        <dsig:Signature>            ...        </dsig:Signature>    </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> Mapping OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme To map the OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme  to the Federation Authentication Method urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:password for this SP Partner only, I will execute the addSPPartnerAuthnMethod() method: Enter the WLST environment by executing:$IAM_ORACLE_HOME/common/bin/wlst.sh Connect to the WLS Admin server:connect() Navigate to the Domain Runtime branch:domainRuntime() Execute the addSPPartnerAuthnMethod() command:addSPPartnerAuthnMethod("AcmeSP", "urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:password", "OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme") Exit the WLST environment:exit() After authentication via FORM, OIF/IdP would now issue an Assertion similar to (see that the method was changed from OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme to password): <samlp:Response ...>    <samlp:Status>        <samlp:StatusCode Value="samlp:Success"/>    </samlp:Status>    <saml:Assertion Issuer="https://idp.com/oam/fed" ...>        <saml:Conditions ...>            <saml:AudienceRestriction>                <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp/ssov11</saml:Audience>            </saml:AudienceRestriction>        </saml:Conditions>        <saml:AuthnStatement AuthenticationInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" AuthenticationMethod="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:password">            <saml:Subject>                <saml:NameIdentifier ...>[email protected]</saml:NameIdentifier>                <saml:SubjectConfirmation>                   <saml:ConfirmationMethod>                       urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:cm:bearer                   </saml:ConfirmationMethod>                </saml:SubjectConfirmation>            </saml:Subject>        </saml:AuthnStatement>        <dsig:Signature>            ...        </dsig:Signature>    </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> LDAPScheme as Authentication Scheme I will now show that by defining a Federation Authentication Mapping at the Partner level, this now ignores all mappings defined at the SP Partner Profile level. For this test, I will switch the default Authentication Scheme for this SP Partner back to LDAPScheme, and the Assertion issued by OIF/IdP will not be able to map this LDAPScheme to a Federation Authentication Method anymore, since A Federation Authentication Method mapping is defined at the SP Partner level and thus the mappings defined at the SP Partner Profile are ignored The LDAPScheme is not listed in the mapping at the Partner level I will use the OIF WLST setSPPartnerDefaultScheme() command and specify which scheme to be used as the default for this SP Partner: Enter the WLST environment by executing:$IAM_ORACLE_HOME/common/bin/wlst.sh Connect to the WLS Admin server:connect() Navigate to the Domain Runtime branch:domainRuntime() Execute the setSPPartnerDefaultScheme() command:setSPPartnerDefaultScheme("AcmeSP", "LDAPScheme") Exit the WLST environment:exit() After authentication via FORM, OIF/IdP would issue an Assertion similar to (see the AuthenticationMethod set to LDAPScheme): <samlp:Response ...>    <samlp:Status>        <samlp:StatusCode Value="samlp:Success"/>    </samlp:Status>    <saml:Assertion Issuer="https://idp.com/oam/fed" ...>        <saml:Conditions ...>            <saml:AudienceRestriction>                <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp/ssov11</saml:Audience>            </saml:AudienceRestriction>        </saml:Conditions>        <saml:AuthnStatement AuthenticationInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" AuthenticationMethod="LDAPScheme">            <saml:Subject>                <saml:NameIdentifier ...>[email protected]</saml:NameIdentifier>                <saml:SubjectConfirmation>                   <saml:ConfirmationMethod>                       urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:cm:bearer                   </saml:ConfirmationMethod>                </saml:SubjectConfirmation>            </saml:Subject>        </saml:AuthnStatement>        <dsig:Signature>            ...        </dsig:Signature>    </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> Mapping LDAPScheme at Partner Level To fix this issue, we will need to add the LDAPScheme  to the Federation Authentication Method urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:password mapping for this SP Partner only. I will execute the addSPPartnerAuthnMethod() method: Enter the WLST environment by executing:$IAM_ORACLE_HOME/common/bin/wlst.sh Connect to the WLS Admin server:connect() Navigate to the Domain Runtime branch:domainRuntime() Execute the addSPPartnerAuthnMethod() command:addSPPartnerAuthnMethod("AcmeSP", "urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:password", "LDAPScheme") Exit the WLST environment:exit() After authentication via FORM, OIF/IdP would now issue an Assertion similar to (see that the method was changed from LDAPScheme to password): <samlp:Response ...>    <samlp:Status>        <samlp:StatusCode Value="samlp:Success"/>    </samlp:Status>    <saml:Assertion Issuer="https://idp.com/oam/fed" ...>        <saml:Conditions ...>            <saml:AudienceRestriction>                <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp/ssov11</saml:Audience>            </saml:AudienceRestriction>        </saml:Conditions>        <saml:AuthnStatement AuthenticationInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" AuthenticationMethod="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:password">            <saml:Subject>                <saml:NameIdentifier ...>[email protected]</saml:NameIdentifier>                <saml:SubjectConfirmation>                   <saml:ConfirmationMethod>                       urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:cm:bearer                   </saml:ConfirmationMethod>                </saml:SubjectConfirmation>            </saml:Subject>        </saml:AuthnStatement>        <dsig:Signature>            ...        </dsig:Signature>    </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> OpenID 2.0 In the OpenID 2.0 flows, the RP must request use of PAPE, in order for OIF/IdP/OP to include PAPE information. For OpenID 2.0, the configuration will involve mapping a list of OpenID 2.0 policies to a list of Authentication Schemes. The WLST command will take a list of policies, delimited by the ',' character, instead of SAML 2.0 or SAML 1.1 where a single Federation Authentication Method had to be specified. Test Setup In this setup, OIF is acting as an IdP/OP and is integrated with a remote OpenID 2.0 SP/RP partner identified by AcmeRP. In this test, I will perform Federation SSO with OIF/IdP configured to: Use LDAPScheme as the Authentication Scheme Map LDAPScheme to  the http://schemas.openid.net/pape/policies/2007/06/phishing-resistant and http://openid-policies/password-protected policies Federation Authentication Methods (the second one is a custom for this use case) LDAPScheme as Authentication Scheme Using the OOTB settings regarding user authentication in OAM, the user will be challenged via a FORM based login page based on the LDAPScheme. No Federation Authentication Method is defined OOTB for OpenID 2.0, so if the IdP/OP issue an SSO response with a PAPE Response element, it will specify the scheme name instead of Federation Authentication Methods After authentication via FORM, OIF/IdP would issue an SSO Response similar to: https://acme.com/openid?refid=id-9PKVXZmRxAeDYcgLqPm36ClzOMA-&openid.ns=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fauth%2F2.0&openid.mode=id_res&openid.op_endpoint=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.com%2Fopenid&openid.claimed_id=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.com%2Fopenid%3Fid%3Did-38iCmmlAVEXPsFjnFVKArfn5RIiF75D5doorhEgqqPM%3D&openid.identity=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.com%2Fopenid%3Fid%3Did-38iCmmlAVEXPsFjnFVKArfn5RIiF75D5doorhEgqqPM%3D&openid.return_to=https%3A%2F%2Facme.com%2Fopenid%3Frefid%3Did-9PKVXZmRxAeDYcgLqPm36ClzOMA-&openid.response_nonce=2014-03-24T19%3A20%3A06Zid-YPa2kTNNFftZkgBb460jxJGblk2g--iNwPpDI7M1&openid.assoc_handle=id-6a5S6zhAKaRwQNUnjTKROREdAGSjWodG1el4xyz3&openid.ns.ax=http%3A%2F%2Fopenid.net%2Fsrv%2Fax%2F1.0&openid.ax.mode=fetch_response&openid.ax.type.attr0=http%3A%2F%2Fsession%2Fcount&openid.ax.value.attr0=1&openid.ax.type.attr1=http%3A%2F%2Fopenid.net%2Fschema%2FnamePerson%2Ffriendly&openid.ax.value.attr1=My+name+is+Bobby+Smith&openid.ax.type.attr2=http%3A%2F%2Fschemas.openid.net%2Fax%2Fapi%2Fuser_id&openid.ax.value.attr2=bob&openid.ax.type.attr3=http%3A%2F%2Faxschema.org%2Fcontact%2Femail&openid.ax.value.attr3=bob%40oracle.com&openid.ax.type.attr4=http%3A%2F%2Fsession%2Fipaddress&openid.ax.value.attr4=10.145.120.253&openid.ns.pape=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fextensions%2Fpape%2F1.0&openid.pape.auth_time=2014-03-24T19%3A20%3A05Z&openid.pape.auth_policies=LDAPScheme&openid.signed=op_endpoint%2Cclaimed_id%2Cidentity%2Creturn_to%2Cresponse_nonce%2Cassoc_handle%2Cns.ax%2Cax.mode%2Cax.type.attr0%2Cax.value.attr0%2Cax.type.attr1%2Cax.value.attr1%2Cax.type.attr2%2Cax.value.attr2%2Cax.type.attr3%2Cax.value.attr3%2Cax.type.attr4%2Cax.value.attr4%2Cns.pape%2Cpape.auth_time%2Cpape.auth_policies&openid.sig=mYMgbGYSs22l8e%2FDom9NRPw15u8%3D Mapping LDAPScheme To map the LDAP Scheme to the http://schemas.openid.net/pape/policies/2007/06/phishing-resistant and http://openid-policies/password-protected policies Federation Authentication Methods, I will execute the addSPPartnerAuthnMethod() method (the policies will be comma separated): Enter the WLST environment by executing:$IAM_ORACLE_HOME/common/bin/wlst.sh Connect to the WLS Admin server:connect() Navigate to the Domain Runtime branch:domainRuntime() Execute the addSPPartnerAuthnMethod() command:addSPPartnerAuthnMethod("AcmeRP", "http://schemas.openid.net/pape/policies/2007/06/phishing-resistant,http://openid-policies/password-protected", "LDAPScheme") Exit the WLST environment:exit() After authentication via FORM, OIF/IdP would now issue an Assertion similar to (see that the method was changed from LDAPScheme to the two policies): https://acme.com/openid?refid=id-9PKVXZmRxAeDYcgLqPm36ClzOMA-&openid.ns=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fauth%2F2.0&openid.mode=id_res&openid.op_endpoint=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.com%2Fopenid&openid.claimed_id=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.com%2Fopenid%3Fid%3Did-38iCmmlAVEXPsFjnFVKArfn5RIiF75D5doorhEgqqPM%3D&openid.identity=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.com%2Fopenid%3Fid%3Did-38iCmmlAVEXPsFjnFVKArfn5RIiF75D5doorhEgqqPM%3D&openid.return_to=https%3A%2F%2Facme.com%2Fopenid%3Frefid%3Did-9PKVXZmRxAeDYcgLqPm36ClzOMA-&openid.response_nonce=2014-03-24T19%3A20%3A06Zid-YPa2kTNNFftZkgBb460jxJGblk2g--iNwPpDI7M1&openid.assoc_handle=id-6a5S6zhAKaRwQNUnjTKROREdAGSjWodG1el4xyz3&openid.ns.ax=http%3A%2F%2Fopenid.net%2Fsrv%2Fax%2F1.0&openid.ax.mode=fetch_response&openid.ax.type.attr0=http%3A%2F%2Fsession%2Fcount&openid.ax.value.attr0=1&openid.ax.type.attr1=http%3A%2F%2Fopenid.net%2Fschema%2FnamePerson%2Ffriendly&openid.ax.value.attr1=My+name+is+Bobby+Smith&openid.ax.type.attr2=http%3A%2F%2Fschemas.openid.net%2Fax%2Fapi%2Fuser_id&openid.ax.value.attr2=bob&openid.ax.type.attr3=http%3A%2F%2Faxschema.org%2Fcontact%2Femail&openid.ax.value.attr3=bob%40oracle.com&openid.ax.type.attr4=http%3A%2F%2Fsession%2Fipaddress&openid.ax.value.attr4=10.145.120.253&openid.ns.pape=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fextensions%2Fpape%2F1.0&openid.pape.auth_time=2014-03-24T19%3A20%3A05Z&openid.pape.auth_policies=http%3A%2F%2Fschemas.openid.net%2Fpape%2Fpolicies%2F2007%2F06%2Fphishing-resistant+http%3A%2F%2Fopenid-policies%2Fpassword-protected&openid.signed=op_endpoint%2Cclaimed_id%2Cidentity%2Creturn_to%2Cresponse_nonce%2Cassoc_handle%2Cns.ax%2Cax.mode%2Cax.type.attr0%2Cax.value.attr0%2Cax.type.attr1%2Cax.value.attr1%2Cax.type.attr2%2Cax.value.attr2%2Cax.type.attr3%2Cax.value.attr3%2Cax.type.attr4%2Cax.value.attr4%2Cns.pape%2Cpape.auth_time%2Cpape.auth_policies&openid.sig=mYMgbGYSs22l8e%2FDom9NRPw15u8%3D In the next article, I will cover how OIF/IdP can be configured so that an SP can request a specific Federation Authentication Method to challenge the user during Federation SSO.Cheers,Damien Carru

    Read the article

  • «Le projet de loi des droits du développeur» : quelles conditions doivent remplir les entreprises pour que le développeur puisse réussir ?

    « Le projet de loi des droits du développeur » quels éléments fondamentaux doivent fournir les entreprises pour que le développeur puisse réussir dans son métier ? Le métier de développeur nécessite un environnement adapté, des outils et un certain confort pour un meilleur rendement. Cependant, plusieurs entreprises ne fournissent toujours pas au développeur les éléments essentiels dont il a besoin pour réussir. Je suis tombé sur un ancien billet de Jeff Atwood, illustre blogueur, intitulé « The Programmer's Bill of Rights » (projet de loi des droits du programmeur), qui propose un projet de loi pour la protection des droits des programmeurs en empêchant les entrepr...

    Read the article

  • Conditions for a traditional friends system vs. open following system

    - by Dan
    I'm just curious for everyone who is developing social sites out there. When you build a method for connecting users, do you prefer to use a following-style system (follow me, you can see all of my information and I can just choose to follow you back), or instead do you choose to have a friends-style system (I have to allow you see all of my information on your homepage, even if it is open to the public, vise versa). Why and under what circumstances do you use each? How do you manage privacy between your users? Have you use another way to connect your users? Examples of what methods you've choose and how you manage the user's privacy (private by default vs open to the web) are awesome; it could show correlation and provides an actual look.

    Read the article

  • Do objects maintain identity under all non-cloning conditions in PHP?

    - by Buttle Butkus
    PHP 5.5 I'm doing a bunch of passing around of objects with the assumption that they will all maintain their identities - that any changes made to their states from inside other objects' methods will continue to hold true afterwards. Am I assuming correctly? I will give my basic structure here. class builder { protected $foo_ids = array(); // set in construct protected $foo_collection; protected $bar_ids = array(); // set in construct protected $bar_collection; protected function initFoos() { $this->foo_collection = new FooCollection(); foreach($this->food_ids as $id) { $this->foo_collection->addFoo(new foo($id)); } } protected function initBars() { // same idea as initFoos } protected function wireFoosAndBars(fooCollection $foos, barCollection $bars) { // arguments are passed in using $this->foo_collection and $this->bar_collection foreach($foos as $foo_obj) { // (foo_collection implements IteratorAggregate) $bar_ids = $foo_obj->getAssociatedBarIds(); if(!empty($bar_ids) ) { $bar_collection = new barCollection(); // sub-collection to be a component of each foo foreach($bar_ids as $bar_id) { $bar_collection->addBar(new bar($bar_id)); } $foo_obj->addBarCollection($bar_collection); // now each foo_obj has a collection of bar objects, each of which is also in the main collection. Are they the same objects? } } } } What has me worried is that foreach supposedly works on a copy of its arrays. I want all the $foo and $bar objects to maintain their identities no matter which $collection object they become of a part of. Does that make sense?

    Read the article

  • Oops! installer misses a lib during OIF 11g install under some conditions

    - by user12674042
    If you installed OIF 11g on OEL 6.2 64bit and passed all the interesting gotchas but got stumped by this error in the WLS admin logs, and Enterprise Manager refuses to start correctly after what appeared to be a full successful install and configuration:  ...  <User defined listener oracle.sysman.eml.app.ContextInitializer failed: java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: HTTPClient/ProtocolNotSuppException. java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: HTTPClient/ProtocolNotSuppException     at oracle.sysman.eml.app.ContextInitializer.contextInitialized(ContextInitializer.java:1035) ... Caused By: java.lang.ClassNotFoundException: HTTPClient.ProtocolNotSuppException     at weblogic.utils.classloaders.GenericClassLoader.findLocalClass(GenericClassLoader.java:297)     at weblogic.utils.classloaders.GenericClassLoader.findClass(GenericClassLoader.java:270) ... <Error> <Deployer> <BEA-149231> <Unable to set the activation state to true for the application 'em'. weblogic.application.ModuleException:     at weblogic.servlet.internal.WebAppModule.startContexts(WebAppModule.java:1520) ... The problem is the installer fails to properly place a required jar (http_client.jar) in the appropriate location for your WLS domain.   Assuming you have Oracle DB installed on the same server, just copy the jar to the lib folder in your domain, e.g. if your domain is IDMDomain and middleware install location is /u01/Middleware then cp /u01/app/oracle/product/11.2.0/db_1/oui/jlib/http_client.jar \   /u01/Middleware/user_projects/domains/IDMDomain/lib and restart your admin WLS.  Enterprise Manager will start to work.  Hopefully this will save others some time while on the bleeding edge...

    Read the article

  • Search by ID, no keyword. Tried using :conditions but no result ouput.

    - by Victor
    Using Thinking Sphinx, Rails 2.3.8. I don't have a keyword to search, but I wanna search by shop_id which is indexed. Here's my code: @country = Country.search '', { :with => {:shop_id => params[:shop_id]}, :group_by => 'trip_id', :group_function => :attr, :page => params[:page] } The one above works. But I thought the '' is rather redundant. So I replaced it with :conditions resulting as: @country = Country.search :conditions => { :with => {:shop_id => params[:shop_id]}, :group_by => 'trip_id', :group_function => :attr, :page => params[:page] } But then it gives 0 result. What is the correct code? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • How can I find all records for a model without doing a long list of "OR" conditions?

    - by gomezuk
    I'm having trouble composing a CakePHP find() which returns the records I'm looking for. My associations go like this: User -(has many)- Friends , User -(has many)- Posts I'm trying to display a list of all a user's friends recent posts, in other words, list every post that was created by a friend of the current user logged in. The only way I can think of doing this is by putting all the user's friends' user_ids in a big array, and then looping through each one, so that the find() call would look something like: $posts = $this->Post->find('all',array( 'conditions' => array( 'Post.user_id' => array( 'OR' => array( $user_id_array[0],$user_id_array[1],$user_id_array[2] # .. etc ) ) ) )); I get the impression this isn't the best way of doing things as if that user is popular that's a lot of OR conditions. Can anyone suggest a better alternative?

    Read the article

  • Is there a more elegant way to apply conditions in nginx?

    - by Ryan Detzel
    Is there a better way to do this? I can't find a way to nest or apply boolean operators to conditions in nginx. Basically if there is a cookie set(non-anonymous user) we want to hit the server. If the cookie is not set and the file exists we want to server the file otherwise hit the server. set $test "D"; if ($http_cookie ~* "session" ) { set $test "${test}C"; } if (-f $request_filename/index.html$is_args$args) { set $test "${test}F"; } if ($test = DF){ rewrite (.*)/ $1/index.html$is_args$args? break; } if ($test = DCF){ proxy_pass http://django; break; } if ($test = DC){ proxy_pass http://django; break; } if ($test = D){ proxy_pass http://django; break; }

    Read the article

  • Conditions with common logic: question of style, readability, efficiency, ...

    - by cdonner
    I have conditional logic that requires pre-processing that is common to each of the conditions (instantiating objects, database lookups etc). I can think of 3 possible ways to do this, but each has a flaw: Option 1 if A prepare processing do A logic else if B prepare processing do B logic else if C prepare processing do C logic // else do nothing end The flaw with option 1 is that the expensive code is redundant. Option 2 prepare processing // not necessary unless A, B, or C if A do A logic else if B do B logic else if C do C logic // else do nothing end The flaw with option 2 is that the expensive code runs even when neither A, B or C is true Option 3 if (A, B, or C) prepare processing end if A do A logic else if B do B logic else if C do C logic end The flaw with option 3 is that the conditions for A, B, C are being evaluated twice. The evaluation is also costly. Now that I think about it, there is a variant of option 3 that I call option 4: Option 4 if (A, B, or C) prepare processing if A set D else if B set E else if C set F end end if D do A logic else if E do B logic else if F do C logic end While this does address the costly evaluations of A, B, and C, it makes the whole thing more ugly and I don't like it. How would you rank the options, and are there any others that I am not seeing?

    Read the article

  • How can I filter a Perl DBIx recordset with 2 conditions on the same column?

    - by BrianH
    I'm getting my feet wet in DBIx::Class - loving it so far. One problem I am running into is that I want to query records, filtering out records that aren't in a certain date range. It took me a while to find out how to do a "<=" type of match instead of an equality match: my $start_criteria = ">= $start_date"; my $end_criteria = "<= $end_date"; my $result = $schema->resultset('MyTable')->search( { 'status_date' => \$start_criteria, 'status_date' => \$end_criteria, }); The obvious problem with this is that since the filters are in a hash, I am overwriting the value for "status_date", and am only searching where the status_date <= $end_date. The SQL that gets executed is: SELECT me.* from MyTable me where status_date <= '9999-12-31' I've searched CPAN, Google and SO and haven't been able to figure out how to apply 2 conditions to the same column. All documentation I've been able to find shows how to filter on more than 1 column, but not 2 conditions on the same column. I'm sure I'm missing something obvious - hoping someone here can point it out to me? Thanks in advance! Brian

    Read the article

  • Using jQuery .find() with multiple conditions at the same time?

    - by fuzzybabybunny
    I know that there are other ways of grabbing radio button values, but I want to know how to do this with .find(). I only want to log the value of the selected radio button, so it requires finding by two conditions at the same time: The button with name=area The button with selected=selected <div class="radio"> <label> <input class="track-order-change" type="radio" name="area" id="area1" value="area1" checked="checked"> Area 1 </label> </div> <div class="radio"> <label> <input class="track-order-change" type="radio" name="area" id="area2" value="area2"> Area 2 </label> </div> <div class="radio"> <label> <input class="track-order-change" type="radio" name="area" id="area3" value="area3"> Area 3 </label> </div> When anything with the class track-order-change changes, it will run the function UpdateOrderSubmission. $('.track-order-change').on('change', function() { updateOrderSubmission() }); I want the updateOrderSubmission function to console log the value of the radio button that is selected. var updateOrderSubmission = function() { var orderSubmission = { area: $('#submit-initial-form').find('[name=area],[checked=checked]').this.val() } console.log(orderSubmission) }; The code above doesn't work. How do I grab the value of the selected radio button? I need to do .find() with two conditions (name and checked), not just one condition.

    Read the article

  • Microsoft Excel; Two conditions have to be true then be counted

    - by Chris Jones
    I'm working on a spreadsheet that two conditions have to true in order to be counted. If the month is January, and the number next to it is less than or equal to 30, then it's counted. Same rule applies for all the other months. Thus far, I have: =COUNTIFS(Sheet1!D2:D7,(SUMPRODUCT(--(MONTH(D2:D7)=1))),Sheet1!E2:E7,(COUNTIFS(E2:E7,"<=30"))) For example: Column D Jan 1, 2014 Feb 3, 2014 Feb 16, 2014 Mar 5, 2014 Mar 13, 2014 Mar 29, 2014 Column E 37 25 30 31 1 16 Outcome Jan 0 Feb 2 Mar 2

    Read the article

  • Best way to format if statement with multiple conditions.

    - by Matt690
    If you want to some code to execute based on two or more conditions which is the best way to format that if statement ? first example:- if(ConditionOne && ConditionTwo && ConditionThree) { Code to execute } Second example:- if(ConditionOne) { if(ConditionTwo ) { if(ConditionThree) { Code to execute } } } which is easiest to understand and read bearing in mind that each condition may be a long function name or something.

    Read the article

  • Why would someone use WHERE 1=1 AND <conditions> in a SQL clause?

    - by Bogdan Maxim
    Why would someone use WHERE 1=1 AND <conditions> in a SQL clause (Either SQL obtained through concatenated strings, either view definition) I've seen somewhere that this would be used to protect against SQL Injection, but it seems very weird. If there is injection WHERE 1 = 1 AND injected OR 1=1 would have the same result as injected OR 1=1. Later edit: What about the usage in a view definition?

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to have variable find conditions for both the key and value?

    - by DarrenD
    I'm trying to pass in both the field and the value in a find call: @employee = Employee.find(:all, :conditions => [ '? = ?', params[:key], params[:value].to_i) The output is SELECT * FROM `employees` WHERE ('is_manager' = 1) Which returns no results, however when I try this directly in mysqsl using the same call without the '' around is_manager, it works fine. How do I convert my params[:key] value to a symbol so that the resulting SQL call looks like: SELECT * FROM `employees` WHERE (is_manager = 1) Thanks, D

    Read the article

  • Windows 8 : combien coûtent les différentes éditions et les mises à jour ? Quelles sont les conditions matérielles requises ?

    Windows 8 : Combien coûtent les différentes éditions Et les mises à jour ? Quelles conditions matérielles requises ? Windows 8, combien ça coûte ? Réponse de Normand : ça dépend. Les versions Plus sérieusement, Windows 8 (hors version RT qui n'est de toute façon pas disponible à l'achat) se présente commercialement sous deux options : la mise à jour, et la boite complète. Chacune étant disponible en deux déclinaisons pour le grand public (développeur compris) : la « normale », et la « Pro ». Auquelles s'ajoute une version « Entreprise » uniquement disponible en licence de volume. Comme tout système d'exploitation, ch...

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to use Sphinx search with dynamic conditions?

    - by Fedyashev Nikita
    In my web app I need to perform 3 types of searching on items table with the following conditions: items.is_public = 1 (use title field for indexing) - a lot of results can be retrieved(cardinality is much higher than in other cases) items.category_id = {X} (use title + private_notes fields for indexing) - usually less than 100 results items.user_id = {X} (use title + private_notes fields for indexing) - usually less than 100 results I can't find a way to make Sphinx work in all these cases, but it works well in 1st case. Should I use Sphinx just for the 1st case and use plain old "slow" FULLTEXT searching in MySQL(at least because of lower cardinality in 2-3 cases)? Or is it just me and Sphinx can do pretty much everything?

    Read the article

  • Does the order of conditions in a WHERE clause affect MySQL performance?

    - by Greg
    Say that I have a long, expensive query, packed with conditions, searching a large number of rows. I also have one particular condition, like a company id, that will limit the number of rows that need to be searched considerably, narrowing it down to dozens from hundreds of thousands. Does make any difference to MySQL performance whether I do this: SELECT * FROM clients WHERE (firstname LIKE :foo OR lastname LIKE :foo OR phone LIKE :foo) AND (firstname LIKE :bar OR lastname LIKE :bar OR phone LIKE :bar) AND company = :ugh or this: SELECT * FROM clients WHERE company = :ugh AND (firstname LIKE :foo OR lastname LIKE :foo OR phone LIKE :foo) AND (firstname LIKE :bar OR lastname LIKE :bar OR phone LIKE :bar)

    Read the article

  • What conditions cause a web browser to display the "Page Expired" message?

    - by RichardHowells
    I assumed that sending a page out with an expiry (a la)... Response.Cache.SetExpires(System.DateTime.Now.AddSeconds(5)); Response.Cache.SetCacheability(HttpCacheability.Public); Response.Cache.SetValidUntilExpires(true); ...would mean that if the user hit the back button they would see the expired page. It does not seem to work that way. I found that using the back button would simply show the old (IMO expired) page. In fact in experimenting with different combinations of caching/not caching and expiry times I NEVER managed to get the "Page Expired" message out of the browser. What conditions provoke that message? Server Environment ASP .Net. I've only tested in IE8 - I'm assuming that other browsers are consistent here.

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  | Next Page >