date:20150609

Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Proxy Testing Tool?

2015-06-09 Thread Brian de Alwis

I had a lot of problems updating an RCP product behind NTLM proxies.  I 
initially tried disabling the use of the Apache HttpClient providers and using 
java.net.useSystemProxies, but the system proxy support doesn’t work with PAC 
files.

I fortunately stumbled across the proxy-vole project

https://code.google.com/p/proxy-vole/

It provides a proxy selector that uses the platform proxy settings, and also 
supports WPAD/PAC files too.  It addressed the bulk of proxy problems, but I 
still had some customers with unsurmountable proxying issues.

I’ve been meaning to see if proxy-vole could be integrated as a solution for 
bug 279471.

Brian.
___
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from 
this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev

Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Proxy Testing Tool?

2015-06-09 Thread Scott Lewis


On 6/9/2015 9:49 AM, Andreas Sewe wrote:


Code Recommenders and the Automated Error Reporting use HttpComponents
internally, either directly or through Eclipse Aether (in Code
Recommenders' case).

We use ECF *only* for our communication test, as we got the impression
that ECF is sometimes more successfully in traversing proxies.


Yes, as per the 'disabling httpcomponents' it is more successful in 
traversing proxies...particularly in the case of NTLMv2.



Our
communication test now uses ECF and HttpComponents and "calls home" on
*both* channels. If one or both messages get through, we have a data point.

Now, the question is how to interpret these data points. Unfortunately,
it doesn't look like we can make blanket statements like "NTLM never
works". It's rather "it depends". The question is just "on what?"


Right.




 From the ECF point of view, if anyone is able/willing to do proxy
testing, and suggest, implement, and test changes or other workarounds
to ECF, then contributions are welcome.  I can't speak or act for the
Apache HttpComponents project, however.

I don't thing we have reached the "provide a patch" stage just yet; we
are still at the "pinpoint the problem" stage. If anyone can make of the
data more than I can, any pointers would be greatly appreciated.


I encourage you to put links to these data and your associated comments 
on bug


https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=422665

Scott

___
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from 
this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev

Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Proxy Testing Tool?

2015-06-09 Thread Andreas Sewe

Hi Scott,

> For everyone's info, there's been a long discussion of what appear to be
> HttpComponents-based proxy difficulties on this bug
> 
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=422665

yes, I am aware of that discussion. AFAIK, we never arrived at real test
scenarios, though, which allowed us to open upstream bug, for example.

> ECF (used for p2) has the ability to disable the default
> HttpComponents-based provider and use an JRE URLConnection-based
> provider, which under some proxy use cases and configurations appears to
> work:
> 
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=422665#c137
> 
> This comment references the documentation to disable the
> HttpComponents-based provider.
> 
> https://wiki.eclipse.org/Disabling_Apache_Httpclient
> 
> I'm not sure what Code Recommenders and the Automated Error Reporting
> uses of ECF/p2, but if it uses what p2 uses then it also will inherit
> the multi-provider support described above.

Code Recommenders and the Automated Error Reporting use HttpComponents
internally, either directly or through Eclipse Aether (in Code
Recommenders' case).

We use ECF *only* for our communication test, as we got the impression
that ECF is sometimes more successfully in traversing proxies. Our
communication test now uses ECF and HttpComponents and "calls home" on
*both* channels. If one or both messages get through, we have a data point.

Now, the question is how to interpret these data points. Unfortunately,
it doesn't look like we can make blanket statements like "NTLM never
works". It's rather "it depends". The question is just "on what?"

> From the ECF point of view, if anyone is able/willing to do proxy
> testing, and suggest, implement, and test changes or other workarounds
> to ECF, then contributions are welcome.  I can't speak or act for the
> Apache HttpComponents project, however.

I don't thing we have reached the "provide a patch" stage just yet; we
are still at the "pinpoint the problem" stage. If anyone can make of the
data more than I can, any pointers would be greatly appreciated.

Best wishes,

Andreas

-- 
Codetrails GmbH
The knowledge transfer company

Robert-Bosch-Str. 7, 64293 Darmstadt
Phone: +49-6151-276-7092
Mobile: +49-170-811-3791
http://www.codetrails.com/

Managing Director: Dr. Marcel Bruch
Handelsregister: Darmstadt HRB 91940
___
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from 
this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev

Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Proxy Testing Tool?

2015-06-09 Thread Scott Lewis

For everyone's info, there's been a long discussion of what appear to be 
HttpComponents-based proxy difficulties on this bug


https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=422665

ECF (used for p2) has the ability to disable the default 
HttpComponents-based provider and use an JRE URLConnection-based 
provider, which under some proxy use cases and configurations appears to 
work:


https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=422665#c137

This comment references the documentation to disable the 
HttpComponents-based provider.


https://wiki.eclipse.org/Disabling_Apache_Httpclient

I'm not sure what Code Recommenders and the Automated Error Reporting 
uses of ECF/p2, but if it uses what p2 uses then it also will inherit 
the multi-provider support described above.


From the ECF point of view, if anyone is able/willing to do proxy 
testing, and suggest, implement, and test changes or other workarounds 
to ECF, then contributions are welcome.  I can't speak or act for the 
Apache HttpComponents project, however.


Scott


On 6/9/2015 8:30 AM, Andreas Sewe wrote:

Hi all,

a bit more info.

To analyze the proxy issues plaguing Code Recommenders and the Automated
Error Reporting, we have included a network communication test job in
earlier RCs that just pinged a stats URI at download.eclipse.org using
both Apache HttpComponents or ECF (through p2's
RepositoryTransport.getLastModified(..)).

If anyone is interested, here's the code [1]. You can view the collected
data at [2] using a "partial file name" of
"/stats/recommenders/network-communication-test/".

This yields results like the following:


/stats/recommenders/network-communication-test/apache/java-1.8.0_45/Windows+7-6.1/Native-none/
  746
/stats/recommenders/network-communication-test/p2/java-1.8.0_45/Windows+7-6.1/Native-none/
  737

The stats URLs encode the platform, Java version, whether Eclipse was
configured with "Native", "Manual" or "Direct" proxy settings (General >
Network Communication) and which authentication method (if any) was
mandated by the "Proxy-Authenticate" header.

In the above, you can see that a Windows 7 configuration using the
"Native" provider and no authentication method ("none") pinged 746 over
Apache HttpComponents and 737 over p2. This *may* mean that p2 had 6
times trouble communicating where plain HttpComponents had not.

Most of the time, the situation is the other way around, however. Here's
a "diff" of the results, in case anyone can spot a pattern.

In these configuration, we don't see Apache at all:


java-1.7.0/Windows+7-6.1/Native-NTLM;Basic/ p2  4
java-1.7.0_60/Windows+7-6.1/Native-unknown/ p2  1
java-1.7.0_21/Windows+7-6.1/Manual-NEGOTIATE;NTLM;BASIC/p2  1
java-1.7.0_67/Windows+7-6.1/Manual-NTLM;BASIC/  p2  1
java-1.7.0_71/Windows+7-6.1/Manual-Basic/   p2  3
java-1.7.0_72/Windows+8.1-6.3/Native-none/  p2  1
java-1.7.0_79/Windows+7-6.1/Manual-Basic/   p2  6
java-1.7.0_75/Windows+XP-5.1/Manual-NEGOTIATE;NTLM;BASIC/   p2  1
java-1.7.0_80/Windows+7-6.1/Manual-NTLM;BASIC/  p2  3
java-1.7.0_79/Windows+7-6.1/Native-unknown/ p2  1
java-1.7.0_79/Windows+8.1-6.3/Native-unknown/   p2  1
java-1.7.0_80/Windows+8-6.2/Native-unknown/ p2  1
java-1.8.0_05/Windows+7-6.1/Manual-BASIC/   p2  3
java-1.8.0_05/Windows+7-6.1/Manual-Negotiate;NTLM;Basic/p2  1
java-1.8.0_31/Mac+OS+X-10.10.3/Direct-unknown/  p2  1
java-1.8.0_31/Windows+7-6.1/Manual-NTLM;Basic/  p2  4
java-1.8.0_31/Windows+7-6.1/Manual-Negotiate;Kerberos;NTLM;Basic/   p2  
2
java-1.8.0_31/Windows+7-6.1/Native-Negotiate;Kerberos;NTLM/ p2  1
java-1.8.0_45/Mac+OS+X-10.10.3/Direct-unknown/  p2  3
java-1.8.0_45/Windows+7-6.1/Manual-Basic/   p2  7
java-1.8.0_45/Windows+7-6.1/Manual-Negotiate;Basic/ p2  2

Here, we don't see p2 at all:


java-1.7.0_51/Linux-3.13.0-24-generic/Native-unknown/   apache  1
java-1.8.0_31/Linux-3.5.0-54-generic/Native-none/   apache  1
java-1.8.0_31/Windows+7-6.1/Native-unknown/ apache  1

In these configurations, we see small differences (which *may* be
explained by a cache somewhere):


java-1.7.0_11/Windows+7-6.1/Native-none/apache  7
java-1.7.0_11/Windows+7-6.1/Native-none/p2  8
java-1.7.0_15/Mac+OS+X-10.10.3/Manual-none/ apache  5
java-1.7.0_15/Mac+OS+X-10.10.3/Manual-none/ p2  4
java-1.7.0_45/Linux-3.13.0-53-generic/Native-none/  apache  5
java-1.7.0_45/Linux-3.13.0-53-generic/Native-none/  p2  4
java-1.7.0_51/Linux-3.13.0-24-generic/Native-none/  apache  22
java-1.7.0_51/Linux-3.13.0-24-generic/Native-none/  p2  21
java-1.7.0_75/Linux-2.6.32-504.16.2.el6.x86_64/Native-none/ apache  5
java-1.7.0_75/Linux-2.6.32-504.16.2.el6.x86_64/Native-none/ p2  4
java-1.7.0_79/Windows+7-6.1/Native-none/apache  71
java-1.7.0_79/Windows+7-6.1/Native-none/p2  70
java-1.8.0_05/Windows+8-6.2/Native-none/ap

Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Proxy Testing Tool?

2015-06-09 Thread Andreas Sewe

Hi all,

a bit more info.

To analyze the proxy issues plaguing Code Recommenders and the Automated
Error Reporting, we have included a network communication test job in
earlier RCs that just pinged a stats URI at download.eclipse.org using
both Apache HttpComponents or ECF (through p2's
RepositoryTransport.getLastModified(..)).

If anyone is interested, here's the code [1]. You can view the collected
data at [2] using a "partial file name" of
"/stats/recommenders/network-communication-test/".

This yields results like the following:

> /stats/recommenders/network-communication-test/apache/java-1.8.0_45/Windows+7-6.1/Native-none/
> 746
> /stats/recommenders/network-communication-test/p2/java-1.8.0_45/Windows+7-6.1/Native-none/
> 737

The stats URLs encode the platform, Java version, whether Eclipse was
configured with "Native", "Manual" or "Direct" proxy settings (General >
Network Communication) and which authentication method (if any) was
mandated by the "Proxy-Authenticate" header.

In the above, you can see that a Windows 7 configuration using the
"Native" provider and no authentication method ("none") pinged 746 over
Apache HttpComponents and 737 over p2. This *may* mean that p2 had 6
times trouble communicating where plain HttpComponents had not.

Most of the time, the situation is the other way around, however. Here's
a "diff" of the results, in case anyone can spot a pattern.

In these configuration, we don't see Apache at all:

> java-1.7.0/Windows+7-6.1/Native-NTLM;Basic/   p2  4
> java-1.7.0_60/Windows+7-6.1/Native-unknown/   p2  1
> java-1.7.0_21/Windows+7-6.1/Manual-NEGOTIATE;NTLM;BASIC/  p2  1
> java-1.7.0_67/Windows+7-6.1/Manual-NTLM;BASIC/p2  1
> java-1.7.0_71/Windows+7-6.1/Manual-Basic/ p2  3
> java-1.7.0_72/Windows+8.1-6.3/Native-none/p2  1
> java-1.7.0_79/Windows+7-6.1/Manual-Basic/ p2  6
> java-1.7.0_75/Windows+XP-5.1/Manual-NEGOTIATE;NTLM;BASIC/ p2  1
> java-1.7.0_80/Windows+7-6.1/Manual-NTLM;BASIC/p2  3
> java-1.7.0_79/Windows+7-6.1/Native-unknown/   p2  1
> java-1.7.0_79/Windows+8.1-6.3/Native-unknown/ p2  1
> java-1.7.0_80/Windows+8-6.2/Native-unknown/   p2  1
> java-1.8.0_05/Windows+7-6.1/Manual-BASIC/ p2  3
> java-1.8.0_05/Windows+7-6.1/Manual-Negotiate;NTLM;Basic/  p2  1
> java-1.8.0_31/Mac+OS+X-10.10.3/Direct-unknown/p2  1
> java-1.8.0_31/Windows+7-6.1/Manual-NTLM;Basic/p2  4
> java-1.8.0_31/Windows+7-6.1/Manual-Negotiate;Kerberos;NTLM;Basic/ p2  
> 2
> java-1.8.0_31/Windows+7-6.1/Native-Negotiate;Kerberos;NTLM/   p2  1
> java-1.8.0_45/Mac+OS+X-10.10.3/Direct-unknown/p2  3
> java-1.8.0_45/Windows+7-6.1/Manual-Basic/ p2  7
> java-1.8.0_45/Windows+7-6.1/Manual-Negotiate;Basic/   p2  2

Here, we don't see p2 at all:

> java-1.7.0_51/Linux-3.13.0-24-generic/Native-unknown/ apache  1
> java-1.8.0_31/Linux-3.5.0-54-generic/Native-none/ apache  1
> java-1.8.0_31/Windows+7-6.1/Native-unknown/   apache  1

In these configurations, we see small differences (which *may* be
explained by a cache somewhere):

> java-1.7.0_11/Windows+7-6.1/Native-none/  apache  7
> java-1.7.0_11/Windows+7-6.1/Native-none/  p2  8

> java-1.7.0_15/Mac+OS+X-10.10.3/Manual-none/   apache  5
> java-1.7.0_15/Mac+OS+X-10.10.3/Manual-none/   p2  4

> java-1.7.0_45/Linux-3.13.0-53-generic/Native-none/apache  5
> java-1.7.0_45/Linux-3.13.0-53-generic/Native-none/p2  4

> java-1.7.0_51/Linux-3.13.0-24-generic/Native-none/apache  22
> java-1.7.0_51/Linux-3.13.0-24-generic/Native-none/p2  21

> java-1.7.0_75/Linux-2.6.32-504.16.2.el6.x86_64/Native-none/   apache  5
> java-1.7.0_75/Linux-2.6.32-504.16.2.el6.x86_64/Native-none/   p2  4

> java-1.7.0_79/Windows+7-6.1/Native-none/  apache  71
> java-1.7.0_79/Windows+7-6.1/Native-none/  p2  70

> java-1.8.0_05/Windows+8-6.2/Native-none/  apache  3
> java-1.8.0_05/Windows+8-6.2/Native-none/  p2  2

> java-1.8.0_20/Windows+7-6.1/Native-unknown/   apache  3
> java-1.8.0_20/Windows+7-6.1/Native-unknown/   p2  2

> java-1.8.0_20/Windows+8-6.2/Native-none/  apache  7
> java-1.8.0_20/Windows+8-6.2/Native-none/  p2  6

> java-1.8.0_25/Windows+7-6.1/Native-none/  apache  78
> java-1.8.0_25/Windows+7-6.1/Native-none/  p2  77

> java-1.8.0_31/Windows+7-6.1/Native-none/  apache  127
> java-1.8.0_31/Windows+7-6.1/Native-none/  p2  128

> java-1.8.0_40/Mac+OS+X-10.9.5/Direct-none/apache  11
> java-1.8.0_40/Mac+OS+X-10.9.5/Direct-none/p2  10

> java-1.8.0_40/Windows+7-6.1/Manual-BASIC/ apache  1
> java-1.8.0_40/Windows+7-6.1/Manual-BASIC/ p2  4

> java-1.8.0_40/Windows+7-6.1/Native-none/  apache  131
> java-1.8.0_40/Windows+7-6.1/Native-none/  p2  129

> java-1.8.0_40/Windows+7-6.1/Native-unknown/   apache  1
> java-1.8.0_40/Windows+7-6.1/Native-unknown/   p2  2

> java-1.8.

Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Proxy Testing Tool?

2015-06-09 Thread Sievers, Jan

> There is helper for this in m2e [1] and I think Tycho has something similar 
> too. 

yes, Tycho uses something similar 

https://github.com/eclipse/tycho/blob/master/tycho-its/src/test/java/org/eclipse/tycho/test/TYCHO279HttpProxy/ProxySupportTest.java

HTH
Jan

From: cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org 
[mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org] On Behalf Of Igor 
Fedorenko
Sent: Dienstag, 9. Juni 2015 14:04
To: cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Proxy Testing Tool?

You can use jetty to create in-process http proxy servers. There is helper for 
this in m2e [1] and I think Tycho has something similar too. 

There is also MockWebServer from Square [2], which arguably gives you finer 
control over your test server behaviour. We use it to test some aspects of 
Aether okhttp connector, but I don't think there is anything specific to okhttp 
in the mock server.

I don't know how to test NTLM proxies, however. Just never had a chance/need to 
dig into it. If anyone has any hints and/or experience, I'd be interested to 
know.

[1] 
http://git.eclipse.org/c/m2e/m2e-core.git/tree/org.eclipse.m2e.tests.common/src/org/eclipse/m2e/tests/common/HttpServer.java?id=milestones/1.6/1.6.0.20150519-1922
[2] https://github.com/square/okhttp/tree/master/mockwebserver

--
Regards,
Igor

On Tue, Jun 9, 2015, at 03:57 AM, Marcel Bruch wrote:
Dear cross-projects,

for the error reporting we use the Apache HTTP Client to send error reports to 
its REST server. We spotted an issue how we handle proxies that require 
authentication - but were unfortunately not yet able completely fix it.

I wonder how other projects test proxied communication. Is there something like 
a “proxy simulator” or a set of test proxies you use? It would be great if 
others could share their setups.

In case s/o has deeper knowledge in using the Apache HTTP Client APIs: the code 
we use to configure our HTTP proxy is in [1].

All insights are welcome.

Thank you
Marcel

[1] 
https://git.eclipse.org/c/epp/org.eclipse.epp.logging.git/tree/bundles/org.eclipse.epp.logging.aeri.ui/src/org/eclipse/epp/internal/logging/aeri/ui/utils/Proxies.java

——

Statistics for the latest RC:

Number of requests with no authentication:
P2: 3278
Apache: 3280

Number of requests with any (or unknown) authentication:
P2: 74
Apache: 30

Number of requests with NTLM authentication:
P2: 24
Apache: 6

___
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from 
this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev

___
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from 
this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev

Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Proxy Testing Tool?

2015-06-09 Thread Igor Fedorenko

You can use jetty to create in-process http proxy servers. There is
helper for this in m2e [1] and I think Tycho has something similar too.

There is also MockWebServer from Square [2], which arguably gives you
finer control over your test server behaviour. We use it to test some
aspects of Aether okhttp connector, but I don't think there is anything
specific to okhttp in the mock server.

I don't know how to test NTLM proxies, however. Just never had a
chance/need to dig into it. If anyone has any hints and/or experience,
I'd be interested to know.

[1] 
http://git.eclipse.org/c/m2e/m2e-core.git/tree/org.eclipse.m2e.tests.common/src/org/eclipse/m2e/tests/common/HttpServer.java?id=milestones/1.6/1.6.0.20150519-1922
[2] https://github.com/square/okhttp/tree/master/mockwebserver

--
Regards,
Igor
 
 
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015, at 03:57 AM, Marcel Bruch wrote:
> Dear cross-projects,
>  
> for the error reporting we use the Apache HTTP Client to send error reports 
> to its REST server. We spotted an issue how we handle proxies that require 
> authentication - but were unfortunately not yet able completely fix it.
>  
> I wonder how other projects test proxied communication. Is there something 
> like a “proxy simulator” or a set of test proxies you use? It would be great 
> if others could share their setups.
>  
> In case s/o has deeper knowledge in using the Apache HTTP Client APIs: the 
> code we use to configure our HTTP proxy is in [1].
>  
> All insights are welcome.
>  
> Thank you
> Marcel
>  
>  
> [1] 
> https://git.eclipse.org/c/epp/org.eclipse.epp.logging.git/tree/bundles/org.eclipse.epp.logging.aeri.ui/src/org/eclipse/epp/internal/logging/aeri/ui/utils/Proxies.java
>  
> ——
>  
> Statistics for the latest RC:
>  
> Number of requests with no authentication:
> P2: 3278
> Apache: 3280
>  
> Number of requests with any (or unknown) authentication:
> P2: 74
> Apache: 30
>  
> Number of requests with NTLM authentication:
> P2: 24
> Apache: 6
>  
>  
> _
> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
> cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from 
> this list, visit
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
 
___
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from 
this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev

Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Proxy Testing Tool?

2015-06-09 Thread Denis Roy


On 09/06/15 03:57 AM, Marcel Bruch wrote:

Dear cross-projects,
I wonder how other projects test proxied communication. Is there 
something like a “proxy simulator” or a set of test proxies you use? 
It would be great if others could share their setups.


Marcel,

David opened this bug some time ago, so there may be some relevant info 
there:

https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=441733

Perhaps there are some Docker images floating around with various proxy 
setups that you could use.


Denis
___
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from 
this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev

Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Signer failure - OCL RC4 late

2015-06-09 Thread Ed Willink


Hi

OCL RC4 built and signed. Contribution imminent.

Thanks Mikael.

Regards

Ed Willink

On 09/06/2015 06:32, Ed Willink wrote:

Hi

https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=469672

Regards

Ed Willink

On 08/06/2015 22:53, Ed Willink wrote:

Hi

The signer appears to have failed. Its log file claims that it cannot 
access the jarprocessor.


Consequently I cannot get OCL's RC4 contrbution signed.

Regards

Ed Willink
___
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or 
unsubscribe from this list, visit

https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev


-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.5961 / Virus Database: 4355/9975 - Release Date: 
06/08/15





___
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or 
unsubscribe from this list, visit

https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev


-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.5961 / Virus Database: 4355/9978 - Release Date: 06/09/15




___
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from 
this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev

[cross-project-issues-dev] Proxy Testing Tool?

2015-06-09 Thread Marcel Bruch

Dear cross-projects,

for the error reporting we use the Apache HTTP Client to send error reports to 
its REST server. We spotted an issue how we handle proxies that require 
authentication - but were unfortunately not yet able completely fix it.

I wonder how other projects test proxied communication. Is there something like 
a “proxy simulator” or a set of test proxies you use? It would be great if 
others could share their setups.

In case s/o has deeper knowledge in using the Apache HTTP Client APIs: the code 
we use to configure our HTTP proxy is in [1].

All insights are welcome.

Thank you
Marcel


[1] 
https://git.eclipse.org/c/epp/org.eclipse.epp.logging.git/tree/bundles/org.eclipse.epp.logging.aeri.ui/src/org/eclipse/epp/internal/logging/aeri/ui/utils/Proxies.java
 


——

Statistics for the latest RC:

Number of requests with no authentication:
P2: 3278
Apache: 3280

Number of requests with any (or unknown) authentication:
P2: 74
Apache: 30

Number of requests with NTLM authentication:
P2: 24
Apache: 6


___
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from 
this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev

Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Almost all projects are ready for the June 10 release review

2015-06-09 Thread Goulwen Le Fur

Great, Thanks you.

-- 
Goulwen Le Fur - goulwen.le...@obeo.fr

Le 08/06/2015 18:32, Wayne Beaton a écrit :
> It was an oversight. My apologies. Thanks for looking.
> 
> Wayne
> 
> On 08/06/15 05:03 AM, Goulwen Le Fur wrote:
>> Hi Wayne,
>>
>> I think that everything is ok for the EEF project (modeling.emtf.eef),
>> but It doesn't appear in the list of June 10 reviews. Given that it
>> isn't included in your two bugzilla queries, can you tell me if you miss
>> something from this project or if everything is ok for you.
>>
>> Thks,
>>
> 
> -- 
> Wayne Beaton
> @waynebeaton
> The Eclipse Foundation
> EclipseCon France 2015 
> 
> 
> ___
> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
> cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from 
> this list, visit
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
> 
___
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from 
this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev

Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Proxy Testing Tool?

Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Proxy Testing Tool?

Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Proxy Testing Tool?

Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Proxy Testing Tool?

Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Proxy Testing Tool?

Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Proxy Testing Tool?

Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Proxy Testing Tool?

Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Proxy Testing Tool?

Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Signer failure - OCL RC4 late

[cross-project-issues-dev] Proxy Testing Tool?

Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Almost all projects are ready for the June 10 release review

11 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information