javascript-sdk | JavaScript SDK for Optimizely Feature Experimentation

So Finally I Found a Solution By Myself.

In Dynamics Portal Management Web Template Section There is a Index.html File Defined. Somehow They Restricted Us to Use The Same Format. So, When I Tried To Deploy My Angular Application. Dynamics Was Expecting The Index File With The Same Format. So It Neglected The Additional Scripts in Header Section.

So, I Just Added The Paypal Script in That File in Header Section & Now Problem Is Resolved. It is Now Showing Button on Production As Well.

Twilio developer evangelist here.

Using the SDK to start a call isn't an HTTP request. It results in a webhook request from Twilio to your application, but that is different to the initial request from the SDK. You can use the SDK to pass POST request parameters as you have seen, but you cannot pass headers.

If you are trying to pass an Authorization header, then I assume you are trying to ensure that only requests from Twilio are accepted by your application. There's already a way to do this.

Twilio sends an X-Twilio-Signature header with each webhook request. The signature is made up of the contents of the request signed with your Twilio auth token. You can read how this works in depth here.

Alternatively, you can add username:password@ to the start of the webhook URL and Twilio will authenticate via HTTP authentication.

As discussed in the comments, Vue.set was able to do it.
See documentation: https://vuejs.org/v2/api/#Vue-set

Arguments are:

• {Object | Array} target
• {string | number} propertyName/index
• {any} value

It replaces the value at target[propertyName/index] with value and forces reactivity on the value(s).

In your case it should be this instead of this.results = response.result;:

I don't think it should show a new window.

Nonetheless, that's how it works if you reject from onClick.

To prevent the popup from opening, you need to disable the buttons in onInit and add a listener for re-enabling them when appropriate, as documented in the link in your question.

As what @Preston PHX commented, whether Pay Now or Buy Now, it's by locale translated by PayPal. Take a look at the screenshot below, if England is selected (by default), the button text is Buy Now:

However, when Malaysia is selected (and only AFTER the country selection dropdown list is losing the focus), the button text changes to Pay Now:

We do not know why PayPal translates in this way and the necessity behind it because:

1. The Malaysian English is in fact following the British English standard since the day it was colonized by British and even after the independence day.
2. Pay Now and Buy Now are both English but serves different meaning.
3. For Buy Now to be translated to Malay should be Beli Sekarang, not Pay Now.
4. When you change the label for the style object to pay, PayPal changes the main gold button label to Pay with PayPal and not Buy with PayPal anyway.

So the solution now is for the Malaysian payers to select Malaysia in order not to be confused by the button label when paying for non-merchandised items.

It turns out that the Split SDK behaves differently if you are running from nodejs rather than in the browser. So if you use jest with its default settings then you need to reference different docs: https://help.split.io/hc/en-us/articles/360020564931-Node-js-SDK

There is no way to force the Split module to "client mode" which is infuriating.

how attackers would practically modify the client-side code. I´m fairly inexperienced when it comes to modifying client-side JavaScript code, so I would really appreciate to understand the process and learn to what degree I have to secure my application.

A debugger checkpoint and modifying variables from the browser Developer Tools debugger or console is one obvious way, for someone who knows their way around the normal tools that ship with all major browsers.

If you don't, the most straightforward way to modify client-side JS is to download the JS file or HTML-with-JS document, make whatever changes you want, then serve up your replacement with an extension like Resource Override and go through the flow again.

On the opposite end of practicality, the client could be a custom browser executable written from scratch in whatever language, with its own or a modified JavaScript interpreter. Or simply an open source browser like Firefox or Chromium, modified and then compiled.

Essentially the client has the potential to send and receive and execute whatever commands it (and hence, an attacker) wants. It's completely non-secure, and your server must validate everything you want validated. Not some things, every thing.

So, always assume the client _could_ be a 100% malicious actor, and trust absolutely nothing just because it supposedly came from "your own" client-side code.

The return ends the function, and what is important is not the return's value but that you have ended with a capture and the correct behavior after a capture.

A client side capture is simple, per your example.

A proper server side capture should handle three situations based on the server's response, per the example at https://developer.paypal.com/demo/checkout/#/pattern/server

Version 0.37.0 of the SDK introduced breaking changes: