Thanks Paul, that makes sense.

For now, we’ll keep using a dedicated internal/service profile with getSessionForProfile() + callAPIForSession() as a temporary workaround for our monthly transaction reporting job.

Could you please confirm whether this workaround is safe to use temporarily in production, as long as we do not include a profileId in the search criteria and only use the session to authorize the request?

Also, we’d appreciate it if you could let us know once the S2S proxy hookup for SYS_GET_TRANSACTIONS_PAGE has been reviewed or fixed.

Thanks again for checking into this.

Thank you for your detailed and courteous response. It fully answered my questions.

hi. @Paul-Winterhalder
yes, permissions to call specific scripts and access control for Services and Operations regarding the generally provided functions are required.
For example, there may be management tools that call specific scripts and use certain functions (CloudData...),
and there may be administrators who only manage items.
If possible, each API Key should be a function with permissions tailored to the situation.

Let me give you an example. A company utilizes a mix of office and remote work. While the internal network can be protected to some extent by IP ranges, it is difficult to identify specific IPs because multiple operators work from home. Therefore, it is currently somewhat difficult to handle this situation using only IPs.

The SDK is just a plain C# source library you can drop into any .NET project (not Unity-only). You can find usage examples and the source in our GitHub repositories at https://github.com/getbraincloud.

@JasonL At the time I reported this, that field was locked too, so it couldn't be edited — but I've now confirmed that it's editable.

Added the additional details to 13660

Ah - great to hear @jongdae-won . Thanks for the update!

Case 13633 - [implementing]

@Paul-Winterhalder , could you please respond to @noah 's inquiry?

It's been resolved. Thank you for your response!

Hey, thanks for reaching out. To answer your main question directly: yes, brainCloud's lobby and matchmaking system can trigger an Edgegap server deployment automatically. You do not need to build a custom C++ room server to make this work.

https://github.com/getbraincloud/examples-cpp/tree/develop/relaytestapp

The relaytestapp example on the develop branch of examples-cpp is a working client example that does exactly what you are describing. It uses brainCloud lobbies and matchmaking to find a match, and once the lobby is ready to launch, brainCloud handles spinning up the Edgegap server and passes the connection details back to all players through RTT.
The server configuration you see in the screenshot is what ties everything together on the brainCloud side. That entry defines which Edgegap application to deploy, which regions to consider based on the selected beacons, and the credentials needed to make the deployment call. Once that server is linked to a lobby type, the entire launch sequence is handled for you.
The relaytestapp is a solid starting point to see this end to end.
Screenshot 2026-05-07 at 12.13.17 PM.png

@Paul-Winterhalder Hello! Here is my app Id "15675

Thanks @Brad-Hester !

We’re planning some major changes to our push notification system, it’s more than just adding a few titles and content fields to the templates. It's not a near-term, stay tuned!

Agreed @armitage - the bulk messaging feature is planned for the use case you describe... (and yup - still coming 🙂 ).

There are multiple leaderboards in the game separated by region, but aside from the region itself, they all use the same settings.

When creating them initially, cloning works fine. However, after they have been created, if I need to adjust various options, I have to edit each leaderboard one by one.

The main problem is that every time I save a change, the “Updated successfully” popup appears and covers the edit button, which makes consecutive edits across multiple leaderboards very inconvenient.

It would be much more efficient if there were a way to edit multiple leaderboards with identical settings at the same time. At the very least, moving the success popup to a location where it does not block the button would greatly improve usability.