Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[feature request] Batch API more info on failed/error domains #1498

Open
rudiedirkx opened this issue Sep 12, 2024 · 7 comments
Open

[feature request] Batch API more info on failed/error domains #1498

rudiedirkx opened this issue Sep 12, 2024 · 7 comments

Comments

@rudiedirkx
Copy link

Currently the Batch API doesn't give any details on why a domain 'failed'. It just says status = error, and nothing else. The web UI status requests give more information during testing, and sometimes (very rarely) when the test fails, it tells you which category failed. Not a lot of information, but at least it's some. Can the Batch API provide some more info on failed domains too?

@rudiedirkx
Copy link
Author

rudiedirkx commented Sep 12, 2024

Web UI status JSON that I'm talking about (for mail):

[
    {
        "name": "ipv6",
        "done": true,
        "success": true
    },
    {
        "name": "dnssec",
        "done": true,
        "success": true
    },
    {
        "name": "auth",
        "done": true,
        "success": true
    },
    {
        "name": "tls",
        "done": false,
        "success": null
    },
    {
        "name": "rpki",
        "done": true,
        "success": true
    }
]

Sometimes (VERY rarely) there's a done = true but success = false. That's interesting to know in the Batch API too. Or whatever else could be the reason for a failing Batch API domain. They happen more often in the Batch API (max 0.1 %, but that's way more), so maybe there's another reason.

@bwbroersma bwbroersma transferred this issue from internetstandards/Internet.nl-dashboard Sep 13, 2024
@bwbroersma
Copy link
Collaborator

bwbroersma commented Sep 13, 2024

Instead of /results, try /results_technical.
Note that there are some known (open) issues with the current /results_technical.
See the OpenAPI specifications.

@rudiedirkx
Copy link
Author

Instead of /results, try /results_technical.

Ooeeh interesting. Is there a way to trigger an error domain so I can dev this into my script? 😆 There are too few errors. What a problem to have.

How long are results stored after "done"? I want to try the next "error" manually so I can see what kind of technical details you have. A request from 9 Sep was already unavailable yesterday, so it can't be long.

@bwbroersma
Copy link
Collaborator

bwbroersma commented Sep 13, 2024

/results_technical also include data when there are no errors.

  • I'm unsure how long the JSON results are cached Update: the results are cached for >6 days, but at the moment longer (Implement delete batch results #1509), however they are stored in the DB and can be re-generated on request.

Calling /request/id will trigger the "status": "generating", if it's "status": "done" you can fetch /results and /results_technical.
A few generating report requests which where queued during the clogged queue are now in limbo (since the queue was cleared), we're trying to recover from that, but it will also recover in a while (because of this cache).

@rudiedirkx
Copy link
Author

JSON for failing domain in /results_technical:

    "www.herbestemmingnoord.nl": {
        "status": "error"
    },

Well, that's not useful 😆 I don't need the technical results for all the passing domains, I'm looking for some detail on why the failed failed.

@rudiedirkx
Copy link
Author

Some domains keep failing in the Batch API, and I can't see any details on why. Is there any way to find out? results_technical doesn't include any error info.

Those domains (I know of www.herbestemmingnoord.nl and www.werkenbijgroningen.nl) do sometimes work in the web interface, just not in the Batch API, so I'm curious for more info on API errors.

@WKobes
Copy link
Contributor

WKobes commented Oct 30, 2024

For www.werkenbijgroningen.nl: see DigitalTrustCenter/sectxt#79 which will work again when we update the sectxt package in our next release.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants