You can create one 'External Node' and attach multiple HTTP monitors. The IP of the HTTP monitor does not need to match the IP of the node being monitored. HTTP Monitors don't allow for dynamic login. You could work your way through it with a custom script, but you should also look into SEUM as this might be more beneficial for you.
We've run into a few websites where a standard HTTP Monitor isn't sufficient for verifying that the page is functional and have begun implementing SEUM for these sites. So far SEUM seems pretty powerful and gives us the ability to actually mimic the user experience.
Any idea what the error "Failed to deserialize probe setting....The remote server returned an error: (406) Not Acceptable. As per the attached screen print? My url is correct (I have erased the url from screen print) and all the keywords are correct.
Thanks.
Here's a brief description of the 406 error that was returned by the server.
The resource identified by the request is only capable of generating response entities which have content characteristics not acceptable according to the accept headers sent in the request.
Unless it was a HEAD request, the response SHOULD include an entity containing a list of available entity characteristics and location(s) from which the user or user agent can choose the one most appropriate. The entity format is specified by the media type given in the Content-Type header field. Depending upon the format and the capabilities of the user agent, selection of the most appropriate choice MAY be performed automatically. However, this specification does not define any standard for such automatic selection.
Note: HTTP/1.1 servers are allowed to return responses which are not acceptable according to the accept headers sent in the request. In some cases, this may even be preferable to sending a 406 response. User agents are encouraged to inspect the headers of an incoming response to determine if it is acceptable.
If the response could be unacceptable, a user agent SHOULD temporarily stop receipt of more data and query the user for a decision on further actions.
Is it at all possible that the URL being tested includes javascript as part of the form data, redirects, requires a valid acceptable HTTP referrer, or relies on host header information? The HTTP Form Login component monitor included in APM is not very sophisticated and has known limitations with several of these technologies. Most common issues are related to javascript forms and servers that rely on HTTP Host Header information. In these scenarios I would recommend looking at our Synthetic End User Monitor solution that does not suffer from any of these shortcomings.
Apparently I checked the source of the login page and could find the below codes:
<form id="form" method="POST" action="https://XXXXX" onsubmit=" var ok = true; var email = document.getElementById('email'); var psw = document.getElementById('psw'); var checkbox = document.getElementById('check'); msg(''); if (email.value == '') { var missingEmailError = document.getElementById('missingEmailError'); email.focus(); msg(missingEmailError.innerHTML); ok = false; } return ok;
Seems that it is using javascript.
The use of "document.getElementById" would lead me to believe you are correct that this is a JavaScript form. I'd still recommend you take a look at our Synthetic End User Monitor product. It fully supports JavaScript, Flash, Silverlight, AJAX, and other common web technologies.
Hi,
SEUM was our first option and we did try it out. However, it is not working with out sites...seems that our's are newer design portal login sites . Below is the feedback from Solarwinds Development team:
"the HTML code on the page is not compatible with the current version of SEUM. The HTML element for the e-mail textbox is specified as input with type "name", which is not in the HTML standard. Instead of specifying the type as "name", they should use "text" (like <input type="text" ...). With the current implementation, Recorder cannot recognize the element as a text field, and since it cannot type anything in, it tries to continue with the next action in the transaction."
Any advise?
Have you tried the recent SeUM 1.5 release? I believe this issue was resolved as part of this release.