When I run command "shimmercat devlove" it gives following error:-
Please find devlove.yaml file:- https://www.dropbox.com/s/6xhk3lq497zw8y2/devlove.yaml?dl=0
Good question #Atul Rai. I'm not completely sure, but I think it could be related with what is written here. It says:
...ShimmerCat probes the port to determine if the application is using HTTP/1.1 or FastCGI. The probing operation shows in ShimmerCat's logs, and may also show in the error log of the application.
Of course if you are not using an API domain (you don't have a subkey port on your devlove.yaml config file) I don't think that ShimmerCat has to do these probes, but I can't see another explanation for these error logs. Perhaps it would be useful if you update your question with your devlove.yaml file?
Related
I am trying the simplest example I can, pulled directly from their website. Here is my entire html file, with code taken exactly from https://peerjs.com/index.html:
<script src="https://unpkg.com/peerjs#1.3.1/dist/peerjs.min.js"></script>
<script>
var peer = new Peer();
var conn = peer.connect('another-peers-id');
// on open will be launch when you successfully connect to PeerServer
conn.on('open', function(){
// here you have conn.id
conn.send('hi!');
});
</script>
In Chrome and Edge I get this in the console:
peerjs.min.js:64 GET https://0.peerjs.com/peerjs/id?ts=15956160926060.016464029424720694 net::ERR_CONNECTION_REFUSED
In Firefox I get this:
Cross-Origin Request Blocked: The Same Origin Policy disallows reading the remote resource at https://0.peerjs.com/peerjs/id?ts=15956162489620.8436734374800061. (Reason: CORS request did not succeed).
What am I doing wrong?
#reyad has requested "a full trace of requests and responses". Here's what I see in my network tab in Firefox:
And here's Chrome:
And a tiny bit more Chrome:
[Note: It would have been better if you could provide a full trace of requests and responses. This problem may occur for several reasons. I'll state two solutions. So, try those. If those doesn't work, provide full trace of requests and responses.]
1. First Solution:
Sometimes, this type of error occurs because of self-signed certificate. To solve this problem, open developer tools/options, then go to network tab. You'll see a list of requests. Select the request which was failed because of CORS(i.e. which gave you this Reason: CORS request did not succeed). Open it(i.e. click it). If your problem is related to cert you'll see the following error message:
AN ERROR OCCURED: SEC_ERROR_INADEQUATE_KEY_USAGE
To solve this problem, go to url that is the reason of this problem and accept the certificate manually.
2. Second solution:
Check the request(which is the reason of CORS) in the network tab of developers tools/options(same as described in 1. First Solution). You'll find a Transferred column. See, what's written in the Transferred column of the failed request. If it is written Blocked By Some Ad-Blocker, then disable the Ad-Blocker. Your request will work fine.
[P.S.]: These solutions are proposed on assumptions. Hope these works. If these two do not work, then please provide more info about requests and responses. And also check this.
3. Third and final solution:
[Note: This solution may not solve your problem directly, but it'll give you alternative solution and also insight about what your problem is and how to work around it]
Before reading the solution below, read this to understand how Access-Control-Allow-Origin works(it is the reason for CORS error).
Let me first explain how peerjs works:
PEERJS works based on PEER ID. So, you've to get some PEER ID either from the PEERJS CLOUD SERVER or you've to provide yourself one in the PEER CONSTRUCTOR i.e. new Peer("some-peer-id"). Peer id has to be unique, cause its necessary to detect all the users uniquely. And, peerjs uses this PEER ID to send and receive data from user to user.
Now, you should know that, you're using PEERJS CLOUD SERVER to get/generate unique peer id which is the default server PEERJS uses unless you specified some other server to use.
Now let me explain why you're facing this problem:
As you already know how CORS works, you may have already guessed, that https://unpkg.com/peerjs#1.3.1/dist/peerjs.min.js(the downloaded js file) is calling https://0.peerjs.com to retrieve/generate new unique PEER ID. But, this request by https://your.website.com does not have Access-Control-Allow-Origin access for some reason, it may also be a middleware problem. So, its difficult to tell where the problem is actually occuring. But one thing for sure, it's not your fault of writing code :D.
I hope all the concepts is clear to you I've stated above.
Now, to solutions:
Alternative-appraoch-1 (Using PEERJS CLOUD SERVER AND Your own provided id):
In this approach you've to generate your own unique PEER ID. So, "https://your.website.com" does not have to call "https://0.peerjs.com" for unique peer id. [Note: make your peer id large enough so that its always unique, at least 64 chars long]
In this way, you can avoid the CORS problem.
Update:
I just saw an new issue in github, which says the public peerjs cloud server is now unstable or does not work properly. It just gives error like: Firefox cannot establish a connection with the server at the address wss://0.peerjs.com/peerjs?key=peerjs&id=123222589562487856955685485555&token=ocyxworx62i and in Chrome: Error in connection establishment: net::ERR_CONNECTION_REFUSED. For details check here. So, its better, you use your own server(see the next approach).
Alternative-appraoch-2 (Using your own peerjs server):
You can host your own peerjs server instead of PEERJS CLOUD SERVER. In this way, you can allow access to anyone/any website you want. If you want know how to host a peerjs server, you may visit here.
[P.S.]: I have studied pearjs issues in github. After reading all those issues, it seems, it is better to use your own server rather than using pearjs cloud. There are a lot of various problems with each new release of peerjs. And mostly related with connection with peerjs cloud and also peerjs cloud is not stable I guess. They were hosting it in 0.peerjs.com:9000 before(not secure). But now in 0.peerjs.com:443.
I haven't use peerjs before nor set up peerjs server. If you want to set up one, I hope the community would be able help you on how to do that properly.
What I understand from your question is that there is an issue of (CORS => Cross-origin resource sharing ), Maybe what I am suggesting is not very intuitive.
First : download the "https://unpkg.com/peerjs#1.3.1/dist/peerjs.min.js" in your local directory . and then incklude the local javascript code to the html.
like: <script src="./peerjs.min.js"></script>
Second :
you are using var peer = new Peer();
but please provide an extra unique id from your side. for example, I just created a random id and provided it.
StackOverflow link: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/21216758/peerjs-set-your-own-peerid#:~:text=1%20Answer&text=Provide%20a%20peer%20id%20when,to%20under%20Create%20a%20peer.
var a_random_id = Math.random().toString(36).replace(/[^a-z]+/g, '').substr(2, 10);
var peer = new Peer(a_random_id, {key: 'myapikey'});
Third : the best option is to run PeerServer: A server for PeerJS of your own.
If you don't want to develop anything, just enter a few commands below.
Install the package globally:
$ npm install peer -g
Run the server:
$ peerjs --port 9000 --key peerjs --path /myapp
Started PeerServer on ::, port: 9000, path: /myapp (v. 0.3.2)
Check it: http://127.0.0.1:9000/myapp It should return JSON with name, description, and website fields.
details:https://github.com/peers/peerjs-server
BitBake fails for me because it can't find https://www.example.com.
My computer is an x86-64 running native Xubuntu 18.04. Network connection is via DSL. I'm using the latest versions of the OpenEmbedded/Yocto toolchain.
This is the response I get when I run BitBake:
$ bitbake -k core-image-sato
WARNING: Host distribution "ubuntu-18.04" has not been validated with this version of the build system; you may possibly experience unexpected failures. It is recommended that you use a tested distribution.
ERROR: OE-core's config sanity checker detected a potential misconfiguration.
Either fix the cause of this error or at your own risk disable the checker (see sanity.conf).
Following is the list of potential problems / advisories:
Fetcher failure for URL: 'https://www.example.com/'. URL https://www.example.com/ doesn't work.
Please ensure your host's network is configured correctly,
or set BB_NO_NETWORK = "1" to disable network access if
all required sources are on local disk.
Summary: There was 1 WARNING message shown.
Summary: There was 1 ERROR message shown, returning a non-zero exit code.
The networking issue, the reason why I can't access www.example.com, is a question for the SuperUser forum. My question here is, why does BitBake rely on the existence of www.example.com? What is it about that website that is so vital to BitBake's operation? Why does BitBake post an Error if it cannot find https://www.example.com?
At this time, I don't wish to set BB_NO_NETWORK = "1". I would rather understand and resolve the root cause of the problem first.
Modifying poky.conf didn't work for me (and from what I read, modifying anything under Poky is a no-no for a long term solution).
Modifying /conf/local.conf was the only solution that worked for me. Simply add one of the two options:
#check connectivity using google
CONNECTIVITY_CHECK_URIS = "https://www.google.com/"
#skip connectivity checks
CONNECTIVITY_CHECK_URIS = ""
This solution was originally found here.
For me, this appears to be a problem with my ISP (CenturyLink) not correctly resolving www.example.com. If I try to navigate to https://www.example.com in the browser address bar I just get taken to the ISP's "this is not a valid address" page.
Technically speaking, this isn't supposed to happen, but for whatever reason it does. I was able to work around this temporarily by modifying the CONNECTIVITY_CHECK_URIS in poky/meta-poky/conf/distro/poky.conf to something that actually resolves:
# The CONNECTIVITY_CHECK_URI's are used to test whether we can succesfully
# fetch from the network (and warn you if not). To disable the test set
# the variable to be empty.
# Git example url: git://git.yoctoproject.org/yocto-firewall-test;protocol=git;rev=master
CONNECTIVITY_CHECK_URIS ?= "https://www.google.com/"
See this commit for more insight and discussion on the addition of the www.example.com check. Not sure what the best long-term fix is, but the change above allowed me to build successfully.
If you want to resolve this issue without modifying poky.conf or local.conf or any of the files for that matter, just do:
$touch conf/sanity.conf
It is clearly written in meta/conf/sanity.conf that:
Expert users can confirm their sanity with "touch conf/sanity.conf"
If you don't want to execute this command on every session or build, you can comment out the line INHERIT += "sanity" from meta/conf/sanity.conf, so the file looks something like this:
Had same issue with Bell ISP when accessing example.com gave DNS error.
Solved by switching ISP's DNS IP to Google's DNS (to avoid making changes to configs):
https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/docs/using
Im new to chef and trying to understand why this code does not return any error while if i do the same with 'start' i will get an error for such service does not exist.
service 'non-existing-service' do
action :stop
end
# chef-apply test.rb
Recipe: (chef-apply cookbook)::(chef-apply recipe)
* service[non-existing-service] action stop (up to date)
Don't know which plattform you are running on if you are running on Windows it should at least log
Chef::Log.debug "#{#new_resource} does not exist - nothing to do"
given that you have debug as log level.
You could argue this is the wrong behaviour, but if the service dose not exist it for sure isen't running.
Source code
https://github.com/chef/chef/blob/master/lib/chef/provider/service/windows.rb#L147
If you are getting one of the variants of the init.d provider, they default to getting the current status of a service by grepping the process table. Because Chef does its own idempotence checks internally before calling the provider's stop method, it would see there is no such process in the table and assume it was already stopped.
This error is driving me nuts...
Situation:
I am trying to create a REST api and use a api-gateway proxy to access it. Proxy URL is HTTPS.
The deployment goes through fine. No errors reported in the logs. Worker assigned.
However when I try to access through browser get the "Uh-oh spaghettios! There's nothing here.".
Have tried all the usual things like making the https port dynamic using ${https.port} and using 0.0.0.0 instead of localhost in the http-listener config. But that does not help. Has this something to got to do with the proxy version ?
Any help or pointers will be great!
Make sure you follow Steps 2 from below link
Getting Started with Connectors
All,
Got the resolution. The problem was with the certificate chain. The keystore did not contain intermediate certificates. When added to the keystore the connectivity worked fine.
Only if Mulesoft provided correct errors or detailed logging, I would have saved lot of time over this.
Thanks for your inputs.
On Windows Server 2008 I created
reboltutorial.com [
root-dir %/www/
default [%index.html %index.rsp %index.php]
]
It returns 404 error page not found. Cheyenne only works with IP address ( http://88.191.118.45:2011/ ok http://reboltutorial.com ok also but on ISS 7).
How to fix this ?
Update: error log
Error in [conf-parser] : Can't access file www/ws-apps/ws-test-app.r
Error in [conf-parser] : Can't access file www/ws-apps/chat.r !
You have to make sure you have a directory named www in the map you installed cheyenne in. (Default dir %www/).
After that make sure the missing www/ws-apps/ws-test-app.r and www/ws-apps/chat.r files also exist.
First of all, HTTP 1.1 sends the full URL over the TCP session (including the domain-name typed on the Location: line). That's how one IP can serve multiple domains (Apache calls this VirtualHosts), so browsing by IP will be sending a different URL to whatever web server gets the request.
Thus it's not a great technical mystery for your machine to be set up in a way that it serves a different page for an IP address vs. a domain. But since you put "reboltutorial.com" in your Cheyenne config it seems that--if anything--that would be working while the IP address version would be failing.
I don't run Cheyenne, and you haven't offered up more details about your configuration. But since no one has answered I looked at the source tree to offer some advice on what you might try.
We know Cheyenne is getting the request and making the decision to hand back the 404, because of the format of the error. The Apache one looks different:
http://reboltutorial.com/show-me-apache-404/
http://88.191.118.45:2011/show-me-cheyenne-404/
So Cheyenne is getting the request. That much we know. The decision to serve up a 404 is made in send-response in the HTTPd.r file. It's a pretty simple test:
if all [file? out/content not exists? out/content][
log/error ["File not found: " mold out/content]
out/code: 404
out/content: none
]
If that's the place your 404 is being generated, then there should be a "File not found:" in your log and a mention of what file that is. If not, something strange is going on. You can throw something in there (even a quit if you're suspicious of the printed output) just to make sure it's getting to the line.
(FYI: In the future when you're looking at other Cheyenne problems, there is a is a setting called "verbosity" which affects the output and you can see in on-received in the HTTPd.r file that for verbosity > 0 it will log when it receives a request:
if verbose > 0 [
log/info ["================== NEW REQUEST =================="]
log/info ["Request Line=>" trim/tail to-string data]
]
If you bump up the verbosity level you might find an indication of the problem pretty quickly. If not, the code is fairly readable and you can put in your own trace points.)