drive | party application for your Fission filesystem | Storage library

Since yesterday I have had the problem that I can no longer mount my Google account. Normally, when I run it, I get a link to authorize myself with. Now, when the code is executed, an extra browser window is opened where I should authorize myself. But if I do it over it, it doesn't work. Do you know why it can be that this authorization link is suddenly no longer shown? Any security setting maybe? I've tried several browsers.

EDIT: With the new authorization popup it works if i mount the google drive from the same google account like colab. But the problem is that my main google drive is on another account than Google Colab. With the link it used to work without any problems earlier...

EDIT 2: I have now solved it in such a way that I have shared the required folder for my other account and can now access it via my Colab Google Drive account. But I still didn't manage to get the link back.

After the code execution and authorization with the new popup i get this error message on Google Colab:

MessageError Traceback (most recent call last) in () 1 #Connect Google Drive 2 from google.colab import drive ----> 3 drive.mount('/gdrive')

3 frames /usr/local/lib/python3.7/dist-packages/google/colab/_message.py in read_reply_from_input(message_id, timeout_sec) 104 reply.get('colab_msg_id') == message_id): 105 if 'error' in reply: --> 106 raise MessageError(reply['error']) 107 return reply.get('data', None) 108

MessageError: Error: credential propagation was unsuccessful

I use this code:

We have some apps (or maybe we should call them a handful of scripts) that use Google APIs to facilitate some administrative tasks. Recently, after making another client_id in the same project, I started getting an error message similar to the one described in localhost redirect_uri does not work for Google Oauth2 (results in 400: invalid_request error). I.e.,

Error 400: invalid_request

You can't sign in to this app because it doesn't comply with Google's OAuth 2.0 policy for keeping apps secure.

You can let the app developer know that this app doesn't comply with one or more Google validation rules.

Request details:

The content in this section has been provided by the app developer. This content has not been reviewed or verified by Google.

If you’re the app developer, make sure that these request details comply with Google policies.

redirect_uri: urn:ietf:wg:oauth:2.0:oob

How do I get through this error? It is important to note that:

• The OAuth consent screen for this project is marked as "Internal". Therefore any mentions of Google review of the project, or publishing status are irrelevant
• I do have "Trust internal, domain-owned apps" enabled for the domain
• Another client id in the same project works and there are no obvious differences between the client IDs - they are both "Desktop" type which only gives me a Client ID and Client secret that are different
• This is a command line script, so I use the "copy/paste" verification method as documented here hence the urn:ietf:wg:oauth:2.0:oob redirect URI (copy/paste is the only friendly way to run this on a headless machine which has no browser).
• I was able to reproduce the same problem in a dev domain. I have three client ids. The oldest one is from January 2021, another one from December 2021, and one I created today - March 2022. Of those, only the December 2021 works and lets me choose which account to authenticate with before it either accepts it or rejects it with "Error 403: org_internal" (this is expected). The other two give me an "Error 400: invalid_request" and do not even let me choose the "internal" account. Here are the URLs generated by my app (I use the ruby google client APIs) and the only difference between them is the client_id - January 2021, December 2021, March 2022.

Here is the part of the code around the authorization flow, and the URLs for the different client IDs are what was produced on the $stderr.puts url line. It is pretty much the same thing as documented in the official example here (version as of this writing).

any ideas why this error?

my project was working fine, i copied it to an external drive and onto my laptop to work on the road, it worked fine. i copied back to my desktop and had a load of issues with invalid interpreters etc, so i made a new project and copied just the scripts in, made a new requirements.txt and installed all the packages, but when i run i get this error

Google recently sent me an email with the following:

One or more of your web applications uses the legacy Google Sign-In JavaScript library. Please migrate your project(s) to the new Google Identity Services SDK before March 31, 2023

The project in question uses the Google Drive API alongside the now legacy authentication client.

The table on the migration page (https://developers.google.com/identity/gsi/web/guides/migration) says:

I was currently using gapi on the front-end to perform authorization which is loaded from apis.google.com/js/api.js. According to the table I would need to replace it with the new library.

I've tried the following to authenticate and authorize in the same manner that I used to do with gapi:

I am working on a spatial search case for spheres in which I want to find connected spheres. For this aim, I searched around each sphere for spheres that centers are in a (maximum sphere diameter) distance from the searching sphere’s center. At first, I tried to use scipy related methods to do so, but scipy method takes longer times comparing to equivalent numpy method. For scipy, I have determined the number of K-nearest spheres firstly and then find them by cKDTree.query, which lead to more time consumption. However, it is slower than numpy method even by omitting the first step with a constant value (it is not good to omit the first step in this case). It is contrary to my expectations about scipy spatial searching speed. So, I tried to use some list-loops instead some numpy lines for speeding up using numba prange. Numba run the code a little faster, but I believe that this code can be optimized for better performances, perhaps by vectorization, using other alternative numpy modules or using numba in another way. I have used iteration on all spheres due to prevent probable memory leaks and …, where number of spheres are high.

I've been putting together my own disassembler for Sega Mega Drive ROMs, basing my initial work on the MOTOROLA M68000 FAMILY Programmer’s Reference Manual. Having disassembled a considerable chunk of the ROM, I've attempted to reassemble this disassembled output, using VASM as it can accept the Motorola assembly syntax, using its mot syntax module.

Now, for the vast majority of the reassembly, this has worked well, however there is one wrinkle with operations that have effective addresses defined by the "Program Counter Indirect with Index (8-Bit Displacement) Mode". Given that I'm only now learning Motorola 68000 assembly, I wanted to confirm my understanding and to ask: what is the proper syntax for these operations?

For example, if I have two words:

While debugging a problem in a numerical library, I was able to pinpoint the first place where the numbers started to become incorrect. However, the C++ code itself seemed correct. So I looked at the assembly produced by Visual Studio's C++ compiler and started suspecting a compiler bug.

I was able to reproduce the behavior in a strongly simplified, isolated version of the code:

sourceB.cpp:

Until yesterday (20 Jan) I could connect to another google drive account (using drive._mount), but when I tried this today, google colab showed me this error:

I wonder how can we filter rows with the same values in columns using dplyr package? I tried doing something in opposite to what was asked and proposed in this question but nothing worked.

I used the approach with apply function but received the following error: