I have successfully set up the feedly developer access token using the javascript library Axios on a NuxtJS site. I am having trouble, though, figuring out how to set up the refresh token.
This is the process I have used for the developer token
export default function({ $axios }) {
$axios.onRequest((config) => {
config.headers.common['Authorization'] = [FEEDLY_ACCESS_TOKEN]
})
}
This code gets run whenever I make the relevant axios request.
What I am wondering, now, is what I need to do for the refresh token. I have taken a look at the instructions on these two pages:
https://developer.feedly.com/v3/developer/#what-happens-once-the-developer-access-token-expires
https://developer.feedly.com/v3/auth/#refreshing-an-access-token
However, I'm still not 100% clear as to what I am supposed to do. In particular, I have two questions:
Do I also run the refresh token each time I make an axios call -- or should I create a function that runs every thirty days and runs the code.
How exactly do I make the axios call for the refresh token. My initial guess is something like this:
$axios.$post('https://cloud.feedly.com/v3/auth/token/?refresh_token=FEEDLY_REFRESH_TOKEN&client_id=feedlydev&client_secret=feedlydev&grant_type=refresh_token')
Is that correct? If not, what do I need to change.
Thanks.
Different developers will use different strategie regarding refreshing an access token. While some will return a new token on every request, other will do it over a term of days or longer.
The idea is to reduce the window of risk in which an access token can be abused but it is sort of a subjective topic imo. Obviously there is a performance penalty when you generate a new access token on every request. Sometimes this may be acceptable, but I really don't think it's necessary in many cases. Measure the tradeoff between the penalty and the sensitivity of the token in your case.
The docs explain it well:
Endpoint:
POST /v3/auth/token
It does say that using url parameters is not recommended, so why not just do it the way they recommend it? Either:
using a x-www-form-urlencoded POST request (standard)
as a JSON object (make sure you set the Content-Type header to “application/json”)
You have more questions around this?
I am currently having trouble with the ADAL.js (v1.0.7) library. When I load my app after a decent period of time I get a login error stating "Nonce is not same as undefined." After looking over the code, I am wondering if I am missing a best practice. To my knowledge, I have followed the suggestions of #vibronet here. Should I be refreshing the user profile, or logging out, or something else?
My configuration looks like:
window.config = {
instance: 'https://login.microsoftonline.com/',
tenant: 'blahblahblah.onmicrosoft.com',
clientId: 'GUID',
postLogoutRedirectUri: window.location.origin,
cacheLocation: 'localStorage'
};
this.authContext = new window.AuthenticationContext(window.config);
var isCallback = this.authContext.isCallback(window.location.hash);
this.authContext.handleWindowCallback();
if (isCallback && !this.authContext.getLoginError()) {
window.location = this.authContext._getItem(this.authContext.CONSTANTS.STORAGE.LOGIN_REQUEST);
}
If there has been an extended period of inactivity, the error occurs after calling this.authContext.login(). In order to get the error I call this.authContext.getLoginError().
I get why the nonce is different, but I want to "reset" it or cause a brand new login to happen.
Please let me know what other relevant information I can provide.
Update:
Seems like solution has been provided in blog post you provide. below is the quote.
The trick is to go back to the authority asking for a token, like we’d
do in the roundtrip apps scenario, but doing so in a hidden iframe. If
there is still an existing session with the authority (which might be
represented by a cookie – but it is a cookie in the domain of the
authority, NOT the app’s) we will be able to get a new token without
any UX. There is even a specific parameter, prompt=none, which lets
Azure AD know that we want to get the token without a UX, and if it
can’t be done we want to get an error back. Here there’s the request.
Previous answer:
i am not fully follow what your code does. but as from blog post, seems like underneath you are using OAuth 2.0
when you said error happen when there is period of inactivity, my guess is token has been invalid, and you will need to refresh the token. Not sure if there is a way for you to refresh it. But normally on server side once you authenticated, OAuth 2.0 provider will hand over you a token and a refresh token, if token is expired, you can use refresh token to get a new one.
I am building a simple support chat for my website using Ajax. I would like to check if the user that I am currently chatting with left the browser.
At the moment I have build in that feature by setting interval function at customer side that creates the file with name: userId.txt
In the admin area I have created an interval function that checks if userId.txt exists. If it exists, it deletes it. If the file is not recreated by the custom interval function - next time the admin function will find out that file is not there it mark customer with this userId as inactive.
Abstract representation:
customer -> interval Ajax function -> php [if no file - create a new file]
admin -> interval Ajax function -> php [if file exists - delete the file] -> return state to Ajax function and do something
I was wondering if there is any better way to implement this feature that you can think of?
My solution is to use the jquery ready and beforeunload methods to trigger an ajax post request that will notify when the user arrives and leaves.
This solution is "light" because it only logs twice per user.
support.html
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.11.3/jquery.min.js"></script>
<script>
//log user that just arrived - Page loaded
$(document).ready(function() {
$.ajax({
type: 'POST',
url: 'log.php',
async:false,
data: {userlog:"userid arrived"}
});
});
//log user that is about to leave - window/tab will be closed.
$(window).bind('beforeunload', function(){
$.ajax({
type: 'POST',
url: 'log.php',
async:false,
data: {userlog:"userid left"}
});
});
</script>
</head>
<body>
<h2>Your support html code...</h2>
</body>
</html>
log.php
<?php
//code this script in a way that you get notified in real time
//in this case, I just log to a txt file
$userLog = $_POST['userlog'];
file_put_contents("userlog.txt", $userLog."\n", FILE_APPEND );
//userid arrived
//userid left
Notes:
1 - Tested on Chrome, FF and Opera. I don't have a mac so I couldn't test it on Safari but it should work too.
2 - I've tried the unload method but it wasn't as reliable as beforeunload.
3 - Setting async to false on the ajax request means that the statement you are calling has to complete before the next statement, this ensures that you'll get notified before the window/tab is closed.
#Gonzalon makes a good point but using a normal DB table or the filesystem for constantly updating user movement would be exhaustive to most hard disks. This would be a good reason for using shared memory functions in PHP.
You have to differentiate a bit between the original question "How do i check in real-time, if a user is logged in?" and "How can i make sure, if a user is still on the other side (in my chat)?".
For a "login system" i would suggest to work with PHP sessions.
For the "is user still there" question, i would suggest to update one field of the active session named LAST_ACTIVITY. It is necessary to write a timestamp with the last contact with the client into a store (database) and test whether that is older than X seconds.
I'm suggesting sessions, because you have not mentioned them in your question and it looks like you are creating the userID.txt file manually on each Ajax request, right? Thats not needed, unless working cookie and session-less is a development requirement.
Now, for the PHP sessions i would simply change the session handler (backend) to whatever scales for you and what makes requesting information easy.
By default PHP uses the session temp folder to create session files,
but you might change it, so that the underlying session handler becomes a mariadb database or memcache or rediska.
When the users sessions are stored into a database you can query them: "How many users are now logged in?", "Who is where?".
The answer for "How can I check in real time if a user is logged in?" is, when the user session is created and the user is successfully authenticated.
For real-time chat application there are a lot of technologies out there, from "php comet", "html5 eventsource" + "websockets" / "long polling" to "message queues", like RabbitMq/ActiveMq with publish/subscribe to specific channels.
If this is a simple or restricted environment, maybe a VPS, then you can still stick to your solution of intervalic Ajax requests. Each request might then update $_SESSION['LAST_ACTIVITY'] with a server-side timestamp. Referencing: https://stackoverflow.com/a/1270960/1163786
A modification to this idea would be to stop doing Ajax requests, when the mouse movement stops. If the user doesn't move the mouse on your page for say 10 minutes, you would stop updating the LAST_ACTIVITY timestamp. This would fix the problem of showing users who are idle as being online.
Another modification is to reduce the size of the "iam still here" REQUEST to the server by using small GET or HEADER requests. A short HEADER "ping" is often enough, instead of sending long messages or JSON via POST.
You might find a complete "How to create an Ajax Web Chat with PHP, jQuery" over here. They use a timeout of 15 seconds for the chat.
Part 1 http://tutorialzine.com/2010/10/ajax-web-chat-php-mysql/
Part 2 http://tutorialzine.com/2010/10/ajax-web-chat-css-jquery/
You can do it this way, but it'll be slow, inefficient, and probably highly insecure. Using a database would be a noticeable improvement, but even that wouldn't be particularly scalable, depending on how "real-time" you want this to be and how many conversations you want it to be able to handle simultaneously.
You'd be much better off using a NoSQL solution such as Redis for any actions that you'll need to run frequently (ie: "is user online" checks, storing short-term conversation updates, and checking for conversation updates at short intervals).
Then you'd use the database for more long-term tasks like storing user information and saving active conversations at regular intervals (maybe once per minute, for example).
Why Ajax and not Websockets? Surely a websocket would give you a considerably faster chat system, wouldn't require generating and checking a text file, would not involve a database lookup and you can tell instantly if the connection is dropped.
I would install the https://github.com/nrk/predis library. So at the time the user authenticates, It publishes a message to Redis server.
Then you can set-up a little node server on the back-end - something simple like:
var server = require('http').Server();
var io = require('socket.io')(server);
var Redis = require('ioredis');
var redis = new Redis();
var authenticatedUsers = [];
// Subscribe to the authenticatedUsers channel in Redis
redis.subscribe('authenticatedUsers');
// Logic for what to do when a message is received from Redis
redis.on('message', function(channel, message) {
authenticatedUsers.push(message);
io.emit('userAuthenticated', message);
});
// What happens when a client connects
io.on('connection', function(socket) {
console.log('connection', socket.id);
socket.on('disconnect', function(a) {
console.log('user disconnected', a);
});
});
server.listen(3000);
Far from complete, but something to get you started.
Alternatively, take a look at Firebase. https://www.firebase.com/ if you dont want to bother with the server-side
I would suggest using in built HTML5 session storage for this purpose. This is supported by all modern browsers so we will not face issues for the same.
This will help us to be efficient and quick to recognize if user is online. Whenever user moves mouse or presses keys update session storage with date and time. Check it periodically to see if it is empty or null and decide user left the site.
Depending on your resources you may opt for websockets or the previous method called long pool request. Both ensure a bidirectional communication between the server and the client. But they may be expensive on resources.
Here is an good tutorial on the websocket:
http://www.binarytides.com/websockets-php-tutorial/
I would use a callback that you (admin) can trigger. I use this technique in web app and mobile apps to (All this is set on the user side from the server):
Send a message to user (like: "behave or I ban you").
Update user status/location. (for events to know when attendants is arriving)
Terminate user connections (e.g. force log out if maintenance).
Set user report time (e.g. how often should the user report back)
The callback for the web app is usually in JavaScript, and you define when and how you want the user to call home. Think of it as a service channel.
Instead of creating and deleting files you can do the same thing with cookie benefits of using cookie are
You do not need to hit ajax request to create a file on server as cookies are accessible by javascript/jquery.
Cookies have an option to set the time interval so would automatically delete themselves after a time, so you will not need php script to delete that.
Cookies are accessible by php, so when ever you need to check if user is still active or not, you can simply check if the cookie exist
If it were aspnet I would say signalR... but for php perhaps you could look into Rachet it might help with a lot of what you are trying to accomplish as the messages could be pushed to the clients instead of client polling.
Imo, there is no need for setting up solutions with bidirectional communications. You only want to know if a user is still logged in or attached to the system. If I understand you right, you only need a communication from server to client. So you can try SSE (server sent events) for that. The link gives you an idea, how to implement this with PHP.
The idea is simple. The server knows if user is attached or not. He could send something like "hey, user xyz is still logged in" or "hey, user xzy seems not to be logged in any more" and the client only listens to that messages and can react to the messages (e.g. via JavaScript).
The advantage is: SSE is really good for realtime applications, because the server only has to send data and the client has only to listen, see also the specification for this.
If you really need bidirectional communications or can't go with the two dependencies mentioned in the specs, it's not the best decision to use SSE, of course.
Here is a late Update with a nice chat example (written in Java). Probably it's also good to get an idea how to implement this in PHP.
I'm trying to think on approach to do authentication with Angular and remote server. Usually what I do in local server, like what they did in MEAN.IO, check if has user and if it is I put it on the global window and that's how I know that user is authenticated.
for example in laravel:
#if(Auth::check())
<script>
var user= [[[Auth::user()]]]
</script>
#endif
and it survive refresh because im check it at run time too.
but now the server is remotely and i have to do something like get request to some url /getUser. But thats not good since all the AngularJS
components will have to wait for the response to return causing inconsistencies and
development overhead.
So what I should do?
You can use "resolve" in order to avoid changing your current logic.
Define a Security service that performs the check let's say Security.getUser() and add it to the resolve of each route you need to secure. That way, your controller will be loaded only once the user is already checked. In case the server will return an authentication error, redirect to the login screen.
You can check out my slides from a secured angular talk I gave goo.gl/kMvoFj
or go over my github repository (It's still very raw, but the main idea is there) ng-secure, I think it might help you.
I wrote an Android app that should 'connect' to a (private) forum using HTTP GET (and sometimes POST) requests. The basic idea is as such:
Login page where users submit their credentials. Login is performed by doing a HTTP POST (tried GET too, same result) to the Login page of the forum, with their username and password as the parameters. The request should return some cookies that I store in a BasicCookieStore.
Every page of the forum they want to visit is retrieved using HTTP GET. I parse the HTML source that I obtain and show them only the relevant info. In order to authenticate the users, the same BasicCookieStore that I used for login (step 1) is set as the cookiestore for the HttpClient.
This method has been working all the time during my testing, and has worked for my beta testers too. Now that I released the app, it became apparent that many users were having issues, especially on mobile connections (Wifi seems to be no problem).
By logging the HTML source that was returned in all the HTTP GET requests, I have a strong suspicion that the actual login works fine, but somehow the cookies don't get returned or stored or something in that direction. The problem is that the HTML source of the first page they will receive should be the list of forums. In the case of users with problems however, they get served a page that basically reads "You must enable Javascript to view this page".
The strange thing is, I don't receive that page when testing, nor do many of my users. Even worse: some users are now reporting it worked fine for them for days or weeks, and has now stopped working. Others have the exact opposite: not working for days, suddenly working now. One user has reported he was in Greece for 2 weeks, where it worked flawlessly, then he got back to Germany, and it stopped working again.
There seems to be a random component at play here.
I have tried various things, mostly with the way I do the HTTP GET requests. I started out using the normal DefaultHttpClient, with various settings, such as this:
HttpClient httpClient = new DefaultHttpClient();
// Define parameters
HttpParams httpParams = httpClient.getParams();
HttpConnectionParams.setConnectionTimeout(httpParams, TIMEOUT);
HttpConnectionParams.setSoTimeout(httpParams, TIMEOUT);
HttpProtocolParams.setVersion(httpParams, HttpVersion.HTTP_1_1);
// Set cookiestore (getCookieStore returns the same cookiestore)
HttpContext localContext = new BasicHttpContext();
localContext.setAttribute(ClientContext.COOKIE_STORE, getCookieStore());
HttpGet http = new HttpGet(url);
http.addHeader("Accept", ACCEPT_STRING);
http.addHeader("Content-Type", "application/x-www-form-urlencoded; charset=utf-8");
// Execute
HttpResponse response = httpClient.execute(http, localContext);
//... Process result (omitted)
Now I have switched to using AndroidHttpClient instead, with the rest of the code basically unchanged, and seem to get the same result.
I have also tried using the AsyncHttpClient library, which works quite differently, but once again the same result. I tried using its PersistentCookieStore as well, and you guessed it - same result.
I am clueless at this point. Am I looking in the wrong direction? The fact that a website would respond with "you need to enable Javascript" for some users but not for all seems to indicate an issue with cookies. I don't know how a website determines if javascript is enabled, but surely with a HTTP GET request there is no javascript at play. So why do I (and many other users) get to the page without any problems, while others get the 'no javascript' message? The only reason I can think of is cookies, but I have no clue what the problem exactly is.
Any help would be much appreciated!
I doubt the problem is cookies. More likely is a network configuration problem.
For example, your user might have connected to a wifi hotspot with a captive portal page (which uses javascript to make you sign in before you can use the hotspot). In this case they should first open the browser, try to browse to (e.g.) http://google.com, get redirected, sign in, and then launch your app.
Or, your user might be connecting through a proxy. Many mobile carriers around the world will proxy their users' HTTP connections, sometimes doing horrible things to the content. Switching to HTTPS might help with that.