Publishing V6.9 Produces an error

Post Reply
klawry38
Posts: 36
Joined: 12 Feb 2016, 01:46

Hi,
After upgrading to v6.9.2 I get the following when publishing to our Tomcat server:
"Failed to send snapshot to the Report Service : Essential Viewer ReportService encountered an internal error while receiving your repository snapshot. Contact your system administrator and check Essential Viewer server logs for errors, e.g. memory exceptions"

Looking in the essential-viewer.log file gives me this: "EasReportService: Could not clear Essential Viewer Cache successfully. | : | EasReportService.java | 605"

It does, however, appear the viewer file is created and seems to function as you'd expect.

The question I have is: Is it safe to ignore the error on the basis this is an "undocumented feature" and will be rectified in a patch release? or is there a config item I've missed during the upgrade?

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Cheers
Keith
User avatar
neil.walsh
Posts: 444
Joined: 16 Feb 2009, 13:45
Contact:

Hi Keith,

The log file you will need to look at is called catalina.out (or catalina.somedate.log). Can you take a look in there and let us know if you see any errors there.

One minor thing to consider is that the Viewer download is called essential_viewer_692.war which will deploy as an application called essential_viewer_692. The URL to access this would most likely be http://locahost/essential_viewer_692. This means you will need to update the URL on the Publish tab unless you have renamed the downloaded WAR to be essential_viewer.war and have it deploy as http://essential_viewer.

Cheers

Neil
klawry38
Posts: 36
Joined: 12 Feb 2016, 01:46

Hi Neil,
Thanks for the speedy reply - very much appreciated.

The log file (Catalina.<date>.log) just shows everything starting normally with no errors. And nothing is logged there as a result of the publish action from Protege. The only log that records the error is the essential_viewer.log file.

I have set the log level to "FINE" and I've attached the essential_viewer.log file for reference.
essential-viewer.7z
Interestingly, I did try publishing to the v6.7 version (kept the old version running) - with no errors.

As I mentioned, it does appear that the reportXML.xml file is produced - but I have no idea if is complete, correct, etc.

Any ideas of where to look next?

Cheers
Keith
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
User avatar
jonathan.carter
Posts: 1087
Joined: 04 Feb 2009, 15:44

Hi Keith,

Thanks for the Essential Viewer log file - this is exactly what we need.

Looking in here, there are some errors that you can safely ignore at the start - all the ERROR entries at the start.

What the log is telling us, is that the Viewer is not able to clear the cache directory. The report snapshot HAS been successfully received, so the Viewer should be working just fine but the publishing process will not report success unless we can work out why the Viewer is reporting a failure to clear the cache.

Have you configured your Viewer to implement the caching?

Jonathan
Essential Project Team
klawry38
Posts: 36
Joined: 12 Feb 2016, 01:46

Hi Guys,
Thanks again for the speedy reply.

From Jonathan's note I went "hunting" for caching stuff.....the trail lead me through web.xml to /platform/essentialCache.xml to the directory ../graph_images/pageCache to oscache.properties.

The difference between our v6.7 deployment and the standard v6.9 deployment is v6.9 didn't have the sub-directory "application".....I created that directory and am now running with no errors. Further investigation revealed v6.9 also didn't have "uml" or "tmp" directories (under "graph_images").

To the point about configuring caching - I didn't change anything after the v6.9 install so can only assume that's the standard deployment configuration which leads me onto this: Are these standard directories and I've missed a step in the upgrade or are they user defined and, at some point in the past (for v6.7), I've added them and, obviously, completely forgotten about needing them for future versions? More likely the latter but I'd like to know either way - thanks.

Thanks again for the reply and giving the hints needed to find the solution.

Cheers
Keith
Post Reply