[09:08:15 EDT(-0400)] * jessm (n=Jess@c-76-19-199-61.hsd1.ma.comcast.net) has joined ##uportal
[09:44:36 EDT(-0400)] * EricDalquist (n=dalquist@bohemia.doit.wisc.edu) has joined ##uportal
[09:51:27 EDT(-0400)] * chrisdoyle (n=chrisdoy@mtw160-1.ippl.jhu.edu) has joined ##uportal
[10:12:16 EDT(-0400)] * anastasiac (n=team@142.150.154.160) has joined ##uportal
[10:54:36 EDT(-0400)] * lennard1 (n=sparhk@uni1.unicon.net) has joined ##uportal
[11:02:14 EDT(-0400)] * michelled (n=team@142.150.154.197) has joined ##uportal
[11:13:08 EDT(-0400)] * holdorph (n=holdorph@wsip-98-174-242-39.ph.ph.cox.net) has joined ##uportal
[12:33:35 EDT(-0400)] * mrboris2 (i=mrboris@143.226.41.156) has joined ##uportal
[13:22:57 EDT(-0400)] * apetro-_ (n=apetro@wsip-98-174-242-39.ph.ph.cox.net) has joined ##uportal
[13:34:54 EDT(-0400)] <apetro-_> howdy
[13:35:05 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> hello
[13:35:08 EDT(-0400)] <chrisdoyle> hey hey
[13:35:12 EDT(-0400)] <apetro-_> Anyone else seeing issues with the Web Proxy channel in uPortal 3 (and 2.6.1, for that matter)
[13:35:14 EDT(-0400)] <apetro-_> http://www.ja-sig.org/issues/browse/UP-2183
[13:35:56 EDT(-0400)] <apetro-_> I'm still open to discovering there's just something misconfigured, but this has come up several times now at Unicon so it's risen to the level of something I'd like to spend some time at the end of next week looking at in the coding session
[13:36:14 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> don't use it at all so I can't say
[13:36:25 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> I wonder if newer XML libs are to blame?
[13:36:31 EDT(-0400)] <chrisdoyle> hrm, no – we've been in the process of replacing all our CWebProxy channels with the Web Proxy Portlet – but have not seen that with any of our remaining CWebProxy instances
[13:36:55 EDT(-0400)] <apetro-_> k
[13:37:39 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> does that same site work with a 2.x CWebProxy?
[13:37:40 EDT(-0400)] <apetro-_> well, at least it's in Jira now. It's likely Unicon will be putting some developer time on this to point it at some examples and see if it can be reproducibly broken. 
[13:37:47 EDT(-0400)] <apetro-_> nope
[13:38:06 EDT(-0400)] <apetro-_> but I know sites with query parameters worked in the past
[13:38:21 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> they may just have bad enough HTML that the HTML->XML parsing is choking on it
[13:38:26 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> that's what the error message sounds like
[13:38:27 EDT(-0400)] <apetro-_> but yes, I think that's an important diagnostic next step – need to find an example that differentially fails
[13:38:34 EDT(-0400)] <apetro-_> k
[13:38:54 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> yaeh
[13:38:57 EDT(-0400)] <apetro-_> I'll see about digging up some better examples. It's been failing against some client HTML that I'm less at liberty to share
[13:39:04 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> looking at the HTML of the site I see:
[13:39:08 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> for (i = 0;i<cid_ua.length;i=i+2) {if (wgID==cid_ua[i]) {_uff=0;_uacct=cid_ua[i+1];urchinTracker();}}
[13:39:10 EDT(-0400)] <apetro-_> but maybe I can "translate" it to something innocuous
[13:39:14 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> in a <script> tag
[13:39:29 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> <cid_ua.length sure looks like the start of an XML element to the parser
[13:39:40 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> since the <script> doesn't have its contents in a CDATA
[13:39:51 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> or html comment
[13:39:52 EDT(-0400)] <apetro-_> oh
[13:39:59 EDT(-0400)] <apetro-_> right, I see
[13:40:03 EDT(-0400)] <apetro-_> and feel suitably chagrined
[13:40:19 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> just tell em to use the WebProxy portlet 
[13:40:24 EDT(-0400)] <apetro-_> but I think that's a red herring, I'll try to lay hands on some simpler HTML for it to fail against
[13:40:28 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> ah
[13:40:34 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> sounds good
[13:41:06 EDT(-0400)] <apetro-_> nonetheless I still suspect there's issues with the existing channel that are going to need to be triaged here.
General
Content
Integrations