Squid

Looking at this now. Can't replicate. Can you show me either a screen shot of the share settings for system or alternatively the file /boot/config/shares/system.cfg It'll tell me that either the plugin is correct or I'm missing something in trying to replicate

Don't sweat it tonight, but a more long solution for China would be nice to find. How can we make it work? I doubt linuxserver.io is blocked, but it might be. It is not, but it is painfully slow to come up. The website it needs to hit is listed in the OP within the changelog (many thanks to Kode) Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

Huh??? A couple of post ago and it's not fixed? I hope you're feeling well! I decided to watch a movie yesterday. Wedding anniversary tomorrow so I figured I gotta play nice Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk True, smart man. But now I'm starting to through computer withdrawal. [emoji33] Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

Huh??? A couple of post ago and it's not fixed? I hope you're feeling well! I decided to watch a movie yesterday. Wedding anniversary tomorrow so I figured I gotta play nice Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

It's a bug in my detection that was pointed out a couple posts above Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

No pop-up generated for the FTP Server warning, thanks for looking into it. Identical behaviour (or lack thereof) for me in Safari and Chrome. I normally use AdBlock in Safari but set to be disabled for the unRAID web UI, and I have also tried disabling it completely. Please let me know if there is anything I can test or log to assist. When clicking on the "Ignore Warning" button, the console in Chrome outputs the error FixProblems:1 Uncaught SyntaxError: Unexpected token ILLEGAL ...and in Safari: SyntaxError: Unexpected EOF (anonymous function) FixProblems:1 As for consistency: Clicking the "Ignore Warning" button for my Docker webUI warning generates a pop-up with a big fat label "Ignore Error?" and in the regular text there is "Are you sure you want to ignore this error:". Had a quick look at the code over lunch and I think I know what's going on with no pop-up and that error. And far as the font size on the pop up, one is the title and the other is a description. Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

Looks like a false positive... IIRC the template has instead of & in it & and I'll have to account for that. Nothing changes on the screen when you ignore any error. But, the next time it runs a scan (or if you manually run rescan), it will move it down to the ignored section (thinking about changing how the ignore button works however) The only real thing that ignore does is it won't trigger any notifications for it. I'll have to look at the FTP code, as IIRC it shouldn't give that error if you don't have any valid users set up. Thanks for looking into it, this will be an immensely useful plugin. I do have a valid FTP user set up, hence "as expected" for the warning. The problem is that I can't ignore the warning... I really meant that nothing at all* happens when I click the "Ignore Warning" button for the FTP Server error. The warning is still there on a rescan, as well as after a reboot and rescan. Given that the "Ignore Warning" button for the Docker webUI warning produces a popup asking me if I'm sure I want to ignore it, I would expect the FTP Server "Ignore Warning" button to produce a similar popup as well. It would also be nice to have some consistency regarding "Warning" and "Error". Things can get really confusing if something is first listed as a warning and then suddenly is regarded an error. Edit: Case in point - I didn't even manage to stay consistent within this post [emoji14] * Aside from the button turning green when the mouse hovers over it and visualising presses like any other clicked button in the UI. If the ignore warning didn't generate a pop-up then something didn't work right and I'll have to look at it. Not sure what you mean by consistency however. Something that generates an error will always generate an error and never a warning. (of course this is all decided by myself and what I feel constitutes an error vs a warning) Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

Confused member of the "ton of people" group reporting in from 6.2.0-beta21, getting a warning about my gfjardim/crashplan docker webUI that I might be too blind to make sense of The webUI the author specified is http://[iP]:[PORT:4280]/vnc.html?autoconnect=true&host=[iP]&port=[PORT:4280] and the webUI you are using is http://[iP]:[PORT:4280]/vnc.html?autoconnect=true&host=[iP]&port=[PORT:4280]. Additionally I get a warning for using the built in FTP server (as expected). The server is not exposed to the outside world, no ports forwarded/DMZ, so I want to ignore the warning but unfortunately I can't figure out how to do that. Pushing the "Ignore Warning" button won't do anything at all for the FTP server warning, neither in Safari nor in Chrome. The corresponding button for the Docker warning on the other hand brings up an "Ignore Error?" dialogue, so at least some ignore buttons react Looks like a false positive... IIRC the template has instead of & in it & and I'll have to account for that. Nothing changes on the screen when you ignore any error. But, the next time it runs a scan (or if you manually run rescan), it will move it down to the ignored section (thinking about changing how the ignore button works however) The only real thing that ignore does is it won't trigger any notifications for it. I'll have to look at the FTP code, as IIRC it shouldn't give that error if you don't have any valid users set up.

No. That's a plugin install fail. Once you get it installed by manually downloading installing then it would wind up failing the connectivity test since that tries to ping github Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

Yeah. You need the .plg and the latest txz that's there. But that won't help with CA as it requires you to be able to gain access. I might be able to get you access to CA data files without downloading but I'd have to look at the code tonight Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

Not much I can do about that. It has to populate the list of apps from linuxserver.io , and failing that it downloads from GitHub If the great firewall blocks both of them then you're going to be SOL unless you can bypass the firewall somehow (or move)

Same problem you would have with any other plugin. 3 options #1. Move #2. Use some sort of vpn or whatever to bypass the great firewall #3. pm me an email address, and I can get it manually installed. It will fail a test or two which you can ignore Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

I had tried that, to see if it would make a difference, no change. I just started Firefox (no reboot), pulled up the Main page, checked the log and noticed syslog entries for 'Fix Common Problems' at 4:40am. Started the plugin and for the first time it says "No errors found" and "No Warnings found", plus it says "Time of last scan: Wednesday May 25th 4:40 AM", which was the Daily scan this morning and not a scan of this instant! I had been assuming it always does a scan when I start the plugin, that's what it used to do, and it doesn't look different. But now I've just discovered there's a new Rescan button, never saw it before! So I guess it has not been re-scanning, just showing the result of the last scan. I must have missed that change. Would it be more intuitive if it didn't show the last scan, just showed the settings and a big <Scan> button, which you could click when ready, and click again after changing settings. Yeah, it was originally scanning each time, but buddy pointed out here that it was a PITA because everytime you fixed something and then went back to look at the next problem it scanned again. So last update it changed to not scan upon entering if the previous results had errors / warnings / other. If the prior results were 100% clean then it does another scan automatically

Out of curiosity, how is your /config folder passed? as /mnt/user/appdata/plex... or as /mnt/cache/appdata/plex...

Did you rescan? Other than that I cannot replicate. All its doing is checking to see if dynamix thinks there's an update available Also, to downgrade it to a warning: http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=48972.msg470697#msg470697 I had rescanned several times, but tried once more, went back to the Main page, then back to the plugin, and no change. Went back to the Main page, spun up all drives for a more complete scan, but again no change. Rebooted and this time the error was gone. So it *appeared* to be fixed after reboot. BUT ... I decided to click the 'Ignore' button for the other 2 update warnings, and they appear to work, except they don't stick, nothing changes, they aren't apparently being ignored, and the Ignore button is still there. So I'm wondering if this and the first issue are another case of client-side weirdness we occasionally have with the webGui, where setting changes don't stick. I use Firefox. I used to have that issue with slot count changes, and would have to switch to Chrome to make slot changes that would stay changed. Others have reported the opposite, wouldn't stick in Chrome, but worked in Firefox. So I just tried Chrome, and it's behaving the same way. I click an Ignore button, get the confirmation dialog box, click the OK button, click OK a second time, then it reverts to the same screen with both Ignore buttons. Noticed that 'Fix Common Problems' does a scan on boot, with syslog entries. There are no syslog entries since boot though, is that possibly an indication that the scan wasn't really running, since this last boot? It supposedly did scans on both Firefox and Chrome. And it has been reporting the adblocker. When you rescan, does the date & time of the scan change?

Did you rescan? Other than that I cannot replicate. All its doing is checking to see if dynamix thinks there's an update available Also, to downgrade it to a warning: http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=48972.msg470697#msg470697 I had rescanned several times, but tried once more, went back to the Main page, then back to the plugin, and no change. Went back to the Main page, spun up all drives for a more complete scan, but again no change. Rebooted and this time the error was gone. So it *appeared* to be fixed after reboot. BUT ... I decided to click the 'Ignore' button for the other 2 update warnings, and they appear to work, except they don't stick, nothing changes, they aren't apparently being ignored, and the Ignore button is still there. So I'm wondering if this and the first issue are another case of client-side weirdness we occasionally have with the webGui, where setting changes don't stick. I use Firefox. I used to have that issue with slot count changes, and would have to switch to Chrome to make slot changes that would stay changed. Others have reported the opposite, wouldn't stick in Chrome, but worked in Firefox. So I just tried Chrome, and it's behaving the same way. I click an Ignore button, get the confirmation dialog box, click the OK button, click OK a second time, then it reverts to the same screen with both Ignore buttons. Noticed that 'Fix Common Problems' does a scan on boot, with syslog entries. There are no syslog entries since boot though, is that possibly an indication that the scan wasn't really running, since this last boot? It supposedly did scans on both Firefox and Chrome. And it has been reporting the adblocker. It doesn't move anything to the ignore list until a new scan. What happens if you whitelist the server with the adblocker

Why would you need to make a screenshot of the settings?

Did you rescan? Other than that I cannot replicate. All its doing is checking to see if dynamix thinks there's an update available Also, to downgrade it to a warning: http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=48972.msg470697#msg470697

There's a slash missing /usr/local/emhttp/plugins/unbalance/scripts/stop If you just copy/pasted, it's strange that it would be missing. Not sure either why it's unraid login the one complaining. The login is just that the local terminal was sitting at the login prompt, and then the error got displayed next to it

No tool such as this will ever be able to handle all the circumstances 100% ( I'm shooting for a false positive rate of < 2-3% ) correctly that it may come across. When I know that there may be valid reasons for the stuff it catches, I usually state that in the suggested fix. Like anything else in this plugin, if you know that the error / warning is incorrect for your particular circumstances, then just add it to the ignore list. The entry will still get logged into the syslog when the background checks runs (so that if a user ignores something that they just don't want to deal with and then asks for help, anyone on the forum can see what this plugin found), but you will not receive notifications for it. (God forbid I ever publicly post my diagnostics online -> metric ton of errors from FCP in it just from me testing this thing... Will give anyone a heart attack trying to help me with any particular issue I might have )

(a & b were to fix an issue on my secondary server which doesn't run docker - Guess that I thought What could possibly not work right on it?)

k.. Update now 4:27 later

Strange. I never saw that. But I know where it's from. Give me 10 minutea Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

Beer. Because no great story ever begins with "So I was sitting down having a salad..." - Added in checks for Moderated / Blacklisted docker applications - Added in checks for plugins incompatible with your unRaid version (Note that this check is different than the check for plugins not known to CA, and finds plugins which are KNOWN to CA but are also identified by the author as being incompatible with your version of unRaid. - Added in checks for changed webUI on docker apps * - Changed: Only run scans when entering the UI if no errors are previously logged. The date and time of the last scan generating errors / warnings is displayed * I actually expect a ton of people to be hit by this warning The way that the webUI entry should be formatted on the add / edit docker container screen should be similar to this: http://[iP]:[PORT:80]/ What this does is tell unRaid to substitute the appropriate IP address and host port that is mapped to the container's port 80 and use that as the webUI entry. What many people do is instead change the entry to be something like this: http://[iP]:8080/ or http://192.168.1.181:8080/ Both of those examples above (while they may work under your current network setup) are incorrect The first will fail if you ever have to change the host port on the application, whereas the second will fail if your IP address changes (and you also have to change the host port) (In a nutshell, I am assuming that what the author put into the template is correct and if you've changed it then you're wrong) However, there may be some valid reasons you have to have changed the webUI setting - hence why it's a warning.

You're correct there except that with unRaid running Docker, etc a misconfigured docker app can create folders / files within the array with wrong permissions / ownership that directly impacts the ability of the user to be able to manage the files (I'm sure we've all run across the "You need permission to perform this action" error from windows on a media file that just got downloaded), and running the New Perms tool is the recommended fix by many people here helping out. (Not to mention the easiest) TBH, I think that part of the reason for the decision to have docker reside within an image file and not a separate folder on a BTRFS cache drive (as it was originally setup in unRaid 6 beta whatever) was because of the New Perms tools basically taking everything down. I think that I'll post a feature req to have New Perms by default ignore the appdata folder...