Re: MORE Checker Samples

[Gunnar Hjalmarsson <mailbox@gunnar.cc>]

Jock Dempsey wrote:
> 
> Original Test:
> 
> Site ID: 69 | Site title: Mirarca Custom Metal Designs
> http://www.mirarca.com/
> - HTML code URL is invalid
> 
> NEW TEST (smaller ring, different ID, SAME SITE):
> 
> Site ID: 9 | Site title: MIRARCA Custom Metal Designs
> http://www.mirarca.com/
> - Couldn't read URL ( 403 Forbidden )
> 
> CHANGED URL TO:
> http://www.angelfire.com/la2/mirarca/
> 
> Site ID: 9 | Site title: MIRARCA Custom Metal Designs
> Site entry URL | HTML code URL
> - Couldn't read Site entry URL ( 403 Forbidden )
> 
> - Couldn't read Site_entry_URL ( 403 Forbidden )???????
> 
> Is this a MESSAGE error?  OR is the checker testing the
> Site_entry_URL instead of the HTML_code_URL
The checker tests both URLs, and that result is what I expected (i.e.
hoped for...). It means that the page with the HTML code passed the
check, while the site entry URL didn't.
> Site ID: 15 | Site title: Heath Iron
> http://heath_iron.tripod.com/index.html
> - Server heath_iron.tripod.com is down or doesn't exist
> 
> URL is valid, and includes jsNAVBAR code (both Ringlink and
> Webring.org code) (checked this site within seconds of test to
> be sure tripod was up)
No theory. Hopefully you don't get that message if you try again. I
remember from the WebRing checker that I often got error reports because
the Tripod server was down (or difficult to access, anyway).
> Site ID: 7 - D & M Metal Artistry
> http://www.wametalworks.com/Links%20page.htm
> 
> URL is valid but site DOES NOT have code.  Checked OK or NOT
> CHECKED.
Hopefully not checked. (I agree that the program should record which
sites that have been checked.)
> Gunnar Wrote:
> 
> > As regards Jock's SSNB, the checker _should_ work for sites with
> > the JavaScript code, since it seems like the servers interpret
> > the JS code before they respond to requests from Ringlink.
> 
> NO, the Javascript is interpreted by the browser.  A CGI or SSI
> include would be interpreted by the server.
Now I'm confused, because when I checked the code for a few of your
sites, the HTML fragments were there.
> But WHAT DOES RINGLINK CHECK FOR???
See http://www.gunnar.cc/ringlink/mailarc/msg01100.html
> The ring checker selection I use is:
> 
> "Check those Ringlink links that are included in the customized
> HTML code"
Have you possibly edited Ringlink's customized code previously? If it
doesn't include any Ringlink links (or more exactly: if it doesn't
include strings like '/next.pl?' or '/next.cgi?', '/list.pl?' or
'/list.cgi?', etc.) the checker doesn't test any links if you use that
option. That might be the explanation why rings pass that should fail.
> (2) have custom code and are not using the jsNAVBAR. ... The custom
> code DOES have the standard Ringlink CGI calls. . .
Do you mean customized code saved in Ringlink? If that's the case, the
just mentioned theory has already crashed...
> To debug the Ringlink checker it is going to need to generate a log
> of errors or responses for EVERY site AND for the general operation.
> Start time, end time, number of sites checked, last line number
> checked. . .  A LOT of complex error checking.  But otherwise all
> the testing is in the blind.
Yes, maybe that will be necessary.
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> I HAD a custom message ... Lost it on the upgrade
Why? It should have been saved in the 'data' directory, which should not
need to be affected by an upgrade. (Btw, what about htmlcode.txt?)
> Automatic ID# assignment sure would be nice. . .
I know you think that. But it will have to wait a couple of months.
/ Gunnar