My iOS application, among its features, download files from a specific server. This downloading occurs entirely in the background, while the user is working on the app. When a download is complete, the resource associated with the file appears on the app screen.
My users report some misbehavior about missing resources that I could not reproduce. Some side information leads me to suspect that the problem is caused by the download of the resource's file to be aborted mid-way. Then the app has a partially downloaded file that never gets completed.
To confirm the hypothesis, to make sure any fix works, and to test for such random network vanishing under my feet, I would like to simulate the loss of the network on my test environment: the test server is web sharing on my development Mac, the test device is the iOS simulator running on the same Mac.
Is there a more convenient way to do that, than manually turning web sharing off on a breakpoint?
Depending on how you're downloading your file, one possible option would be to set the callback delegate to null halfway through the download. It would still download the data, but your application would simply stop receiving callbacks. Although, I don't know if that's how the application would function if it truly dropped the connection.
Another option would be to temporarily point the download request at some random file on an external web server, then halfway though just disconnect your computer from the internet. I've done that to test network connectivity issues and it usually works. The interesting problem in your case is that you're downloading from your own computer, so disconnecting won't help. This would just be so you can determine the order of callbacks within the application when this happens, (does it make any callbacks at all? In what order?) so that you can simulate that behavior when actually pointed to your test server.
Combine both options together, I guess, to get the best solution.
Related
After thinking about this for 2 weeks, I have to ask this question.
I've created a NW.js app that works smoothly and nice on 7 different laptops and PCs. The app shows html videos and contains a bunch of javascripts, I've got deloped since 2 years. Alls this works fine on every laptop/PC.
Here comes the problem:
On one laptop the app works, too, but the app isn't able neither to show HTML frame contents nor to execute js scripts from a specific web domain. This only occurs with a specific domain (that I'm the owner of).
The strange thing is, that this happens only on one laptop.
The laptop uses the same internet connection as some other devices. I reinstalled the app, deleted all subfolders from the app folder, but the error is back. In the frame I see the silly message, that the website is down or moved.
You likely have a system-wide proxy configured or possibly some AV software installed on that laptop is blocking that site. Attempt to access the same URL through another browser (Chrome, Edge, Firefox, etc.) to confirm.
Could be related to your hosts file.
C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc\hosts
That is a plain text file without an extension. You can put URL's or IP addresses in it and it will block any access to them globally on the computer.
Though Sysrage is probably right, it's more likely that you just have some AV/firewall/security software blocking stuff it shouldn't (happens all the time, they can be "over protective" sometimes)
If it is something related to your NW.js install, and it isn't happening on other machines (so you know your app code is correct), then you could try deleting the app data folder for you app. To find it's location on the computer run console.log(nw.App.dataPath). It should be something like:
C:\Users\YOUR USER NAME\AppData\Local\YOUR APP NAME
You can just delete the whole folder (make sure your app isn't running first). Then the next time you open your app it will recreate that folder (it's a chromium thing). Things like saved passwords or dev tool customization or spellcheck dictionary modifications are stored in there. So maybe there's just something funky that needs cleared out.
Is there any way to load background js even on error pages (such as net::ERR_NETWORK_CHANGED)? I need to keep persistence connection with WS server from the extension, but error pages don't load background js. So I lose the connection and possibility to restart it (due this is automated tool without access to browser ui).
The only solution I found is to use proxy server to customize error pages and load background js inside of them.
The assertion "Background js doesn't work on error pages" does not make any sense, because there's only one background page per extension two if you use split incognito mode.
So I assume that you want to detect a network connectivity loss in order to restore the web socket. Chrome offers two reliable global events for this: online and offline.
I have published the source code of Real-time desktop notifications for Stack Exchange inbox, which also accounts for network connectivity loss/regain. The relevant Web Socket part of the Chrome extension is found in stackexchange-notifications/Chrome/using-websocket.js on Github.
Here's what I want to be able to do:
Run a program on my local computer which logs in to a citrix server (using citrix receiver or doing so in a similar way), on the server in the citrix session open a web browser, load a website, and then bring the html of that site back out of the citrix session and onto my local computer. Bascially I want to get data out of a citrix remote session.
How can I do this programmatically?
I'm fine with whatever programming language/modality you are comfortable in answering the question using.
I've looked a little into the citrix apis but while I find some things about logging in and even sending keystrokes and mouse clicks I found nothing about obtaining data. I could just log in and then use a program like wireshark to get the information, but I'm guessing it's all encrypted (plus then I wouldn't be doing my task all programmatically). I know of at least one open source program which seems to be able to replace a citrix reciever/client (openthinclient.org) but before I got digging through all its source code to try to answer my question I thought I'd ask here in case someone had an easier answer.
If all you want is to automate the task, is having the program act as a citrix client necessary?
I assume you don't have install privileges inside your citrix session, so are unable to install one of the many automation tools available (such as http://docs.seleniumhq.org/)?
Given the above...
If you have/allow java on your local machine, have a look at http://www.sikuli.org/
The main difference between this and other automation tools I've come across is that Sikuli uses the image on screen to navigate the gui, rather than grabbing calls to the widgets (which wont work in a citrix session).
So, assuming you can take a screenshot of your citrix session, it could be useful to you.
I'm not really sure how to word this exactly, so hopefully someone can make sense of it. I've been working on an iPad app that syncs files from a server to your iPad and lets you build presentations with the various files. The corporation I'm working with on this app has a wireless network that requires you to re-authenticate every hour. So every hour instead of getting the expected JSON api response, any HTTP request pulls down the page needed to reauth with the wireless network. I was wondering is there is a specific HTTP response code related to getting sent that page or a "best-practice" way of testing for that page as opposed to JSON.
Granted I could just test to see if the response is HTML, but that doesn't account for other redirect responses that I haven't found yet. I could just test part of the HTML to see if it matches a predetermined portion of the html, but I'm an outside contractor. I can't guarantee they won't change the markup or verbiage of the page after I've made my deliverable.
So does anyone out in the ether know a "best practices" methodology for testing if the app needs to reauth before syncing?
I noticed that on Mac OS X and maybe even iOS, when you connect to a new Wi-Fi network, it will try to contact www.apple.com. This is being done to check if the internet connectivity is available. If it's not available, the Captive Network Assistant will pop-up, showing you the authentication page, or sometimes when I'm in Starbucks, an advertisement.
Following your question, since Apple themselves is doing it this way, I think you could check for HTTP response code, look for something in the HTML markup (slightly discouraged though) or trying to connect to a known server (Reachability).
For a corporation practicing well-documented projects, I am quite sure they won't be changing things without making sure that your app, once deployed will continue to work.
I'm looking to sandbox an app to comply with the March 1st sandboxing requirement of the Mac App Store. My app includes a built-in terminal emulator which utilizes a forkpty() call to launch processes in a pseudo-tty environment. Unfortunately, this call fails under the sandbox with the error "Operation not permitted", although the fork() call works just fine. Presumably the forkpty() call requires read/write access to the /dev/ directory to create a pseudo-tty (according to the man page). I've tried adding a temporary sandboxing entitlement (com.apple.security.temporary-exception.files.absolute-path.read-write) with read/write access to /, and I now can indeed read and write files anywhere on the file system, but the forkpty() call still fails with the same error. Does anyone know how I might get forkpty() to work under the sandbox?
My app is a programming text editor with a built-in terminal emulator and file browser, so it essentially needs to have access to the entire file system. Apart from the forkpty() problem, this temporary entitlement seems to do what I need. But will Apple accept an app with such a loosely defined temporary exception entitlement?
Thanks in advance guys. I really hope I can get this sandboxing up and running so I continue to distribute my app through the App Store.
It is impossible to implement a useful terminal emulator in a sandboxed application -- even after you add entitlements for the PTY devices, the shell ends up in the same sandbox as the app, preventing it from doing very much.