Develop Reference

FIX 4.4 MarketDataRequest Conditionally Required Field Missing (299)

I wrote a program that sends the following
to App: 8=FIX.4.4|9=156|35=V|34=2|49=id|52=sometime|56=id1|146=1|55=EURUSD|460=4|167=FOR|262=1|263=1|264=1|265=0|267=2|269=0|269=1|10=114|
I receive this. I get the bid and the offer as expected:
from App 8=FIX.4.4|9=217|35=W|34=4|49=id1|52=sometime|56=id|42=sometime1|55=EURUSD|262=1|268=2|269=0|270=1.12438|271=50000|269=1|270=1.12442|271=50000|10094=sometime2|10=002|
But as I request snapshot + update on full refresh, it sends back the following;
to App: 8=FIX.4.4|9=118|35=j|34=3|49=id|52=sometime|56=id1|45=2|58=Conditionally Required Field Missing (299)|372=W|380=5|10=210|
Data Dictionary of my broker is the following: DataDictionary
UseDataDictionary=Y
ValidateUserDefinedFields=N # tried with Y, same
DataDictionary=C:\Users\Documents\FIX44.xml
Any idea of what I did wrong please?
Thank you folks!

Check your counterparty's documentation for what fields they expect you to send in the MarketDataRequest (35=V) message.
In the default DataDictionary, QuoteEntryID (tag 299) doesn't belong to MarketDataRequest or in any of the repeating groups it contains. This means that your counterparty has made a DD customization and added it somewhere.
So your main mistake is that you are not looking at your counterparty's docs, and your local DD is not in sync with theirs. That latter part is not burning you here in this question, but it will burn you later. Get your DD in sync!
Back to this issue: Sure, you're adding QuoteEntryID to the message, but you're adding it to the top-level of the message body, and your counterparty probably isn't looking for it there. If you look again at the default DataDictionary, QuoteEntryID always belong to a group, so your counterparty probably wants it in in a group also. You just need to read their docs to find out which group it is.
TLDR: Counterparties always customize the DataDictionary -- always read your counterparty's docs!

What is canonical ID in Pyramid simpleauth

I just got started with Pyramid web development and want to use pyramid_simpleauth for my project. I'm not sure what canonical_id is in its User model.py.
It seems to be just a randomly generated string that gets used in its ACL somehow, can someone shed me some lights what this does and why it's needed?
Thank you.

The reason you want a canonical_id is so that you have something to refer the user by that is not their username or email address. Those two entities may change, whereas the canonical_id should never change.

Django session race condition?

Summary: is there a race condition in Django sessions, and how do I prevent it?
I have an interesting problem with Django sessions which I think involves a race condition due to simultaneous requests by the same user.
It has occured in a script for uploading several files at the same time, being tested on localhost. I think this makes simultaneous requests from the same user quite likely (low response times due to localhost, long requests due to file uploads). It's still possible for normal requests outside localhost though, just less likely.
I am sending several (file post) requests that I think do this:
Django automatically retrieves the user's session*
Unrelated code that takes some time
Get request.session['files'] (a dictionary)
Append data about the current file to the dictionary
Store the dictionary in request.session['files'] again
Check that it has indeed been stored
More unrelated code that takes time
Django automatically stores the user's session
Here the check at 6. will indicate that the information has indeed been stored in the session. However, future requests indicate that sometimes it has, sometimes it has not.
What I think is happening is that two of these requests (A and B) happen simultaneously. Request A retrieves request.session['files'] first, then B does the same, changes it and stores it. When A finally finishes, it overwrites the session changes by B.
Two questions:
Is this indeed what is happening? Is the django development server multithreaded? On Google I'm finding pages about making it multithreaded, suggesting that by default it is not? Otherwise, what could be the problem?
If this race condition is the problem, what would be the best way to solve it? It's an inconvenience but not a security concern, so I'd already be happy if the chance can be decreased significantly.
Retrieving the session data right before the changes and saving it right after should decrease the chance significantly I think. However I have not found a way to do this for the request.session, only working around it using django.contrib.sessions.backends.db.SessionStore. However I figure that if I change it that way, Django will just overwrite it with request.session at the end of the request.
So I need a request.session.reload() and request.session.commit(), basically.

Yes, it is possible for a request to start before another has finished. You can check this by printing something at the start and end of a view and launch a bunch of request at the same time.
Indeed the session is loaded before the view and saved after the view. You can reload the session using request.session = engine.SessionStore(session_key) and save it using request.session.save().
Reloading the session however does discard any data added to the session before that (in the view or before it). Saving before reloading would destroy the point of loading late. A better way would be to save the files to the database as a new model.
The essence of the answer is in the discussion of Thomas' answer, which was incomplete so I've posted the complete answer.

Mark just nailed it, only minor addition from me, is how to load that session:
for key in session.keys(): # if you have potential removals
del session[key]
session.update(session.load())
session.modified = False # just making it clean
First line optional, you only need it if certain values might be removed meanwhile from the session.
Last line is optional, if you update the session, then it does not really matter.

That is true. You can confirm it by having a look at the django.contrib.sessions.middleware.SessionMiddleware.
Basically, request.session is loaded before request hits your view (in process_request), and it is updated in the session backend (if needed) after the response has left your view (in process_response).
If what I mean is unclear, you might want to have a look at the django documentation for Middleware.
The best way to solve the issue will depend on what you're trying to achieve with that information. I'll update my answer if you provide that information!

Set Time Constraint for generated URL of uploaded files

I am trying to build an application (using Django) which uploads files and generates corresponding URL. Is there some way we can set time constraint for the url, i.e. the uploaded file in url should exist only for little time after the specified time that url should give an error.
I would be using the default django server, in such a case what would be the possible ways to tackle the time constarint problem. I would be glad if you answer for both the cases as for global and individual files, or even a single solution is good :)
~Newbie up with a Herculean Task! Thank You :)

You can have a datetimefield as an additional column and expire it as and when required.

If your uploaded files are being served by the Django app itself, then it's quite easy (and can be solved in different ways depending on weither the "time constraint" is global to all files/urls or not).
Else - that is if the files are served by Apache or anything similar - you'll have to resort to some async mechanism to collect and delete "obsolete" files, either the Q&D way (using a cron job) or with some help from Celery.

Warning while saving opportunity in OpenERP

After creating an opportunity, when I click on save, it gives me this warning for some users:
"Operation prohibited by access rules, or performed on an already deleted document (Operation: read, Document type: User Modification)."
What's causing this problem?
Update: I have created a new user of admin type and I added these groups:
Sales/User,Sales/User All Leads,Survey/User,Tools/User. It gives me a warning while creating an opportunity.
I added the following groups to the new user and it's working fine: Employee, PartnerManager, Marketing/User, Accounting/Accountant, Accounting/Invoice, Accounting/Manager, Administration/Access Rights, Human Resource/Manager, Human Resource/User, Knowledge/User, Marketing/Manager, Project/Manager, Sales/Manager, Tools/Manager, trimax/AdminMeeting, Trimax/‌​SalesExecutive, Trimax/Vertical, Trimax/SalesHead, Trimax/SalesManager, Useability/An‌alyticAccounting, Useability/Extended, View, Useability/MultiCompanies, Useability/No One, Useability/Product Uos View, Useability/Product Variant, Warehouse/Manager, Warehouse/User, Tools/User, Administration/Configuration
But in already created user if I remove the above groups which give warning ,then also it shows same warning.
The solution I mentioned above was for new users,but for some existing users it was still giving problem. So I removed some unwanted groups, which I didn't needed for those users and it worked, now it does not show warning. Was the warning due to some access right overlap or something else?

Those users probably don't have access rights for the opportunity object, or some child object. Read the access rights documentation for more details.
Update: You said that you're having trouble configuring a new user. As an experiment, try adding permissions to an existing user instead of starting a brand new user. Also, check that you've configured the roles as well as the permissions, that trips me up sometimes.
Another Update: You said that removing some groups stopped the warning. It may be that you have removed all access rules from the object. If no groups are explicitly granted access to something in OpenERP, then everyone is granted access. If you really want to figure out what's going on, I suggest you read the documentation I linked to above. You can also search for the error message in the source code and see exactly what it is complaining about. I find it really helpful to run the OpenERP server in debug mode, and step through the code when I'm trying to understand some weird behaviour like this. You can also try and figure out exactly which change triggers this error by adding and removing groups until you find a single change that makes the problem happen.

Hi these is due to the access right problem .So you give the proper access right to your user(for creating the oppurtunity)

same problem here.I'm using Multi-company, I provid all permistion to the user