« first day (1734 days earlier)      last day (2120 days later) » 

6:22 AM
@Izzy Thanks!
@Lucky Did you try opening that file in Notepad++?
 
@Firelord NP – thanks for bringing it up (I'd missed that otherwise) :)
 
6:40 AM
@Firelord nice one with the usage stats (+1) – you just gave me a new idea to extend Adebar :)
 
@Firelord Yes in Notepad++ its some NULL content filled with that. and in Sublime text it is displayed as HEXadecimal values
 
@Izzy And that would be?
@Lucky So ultimately, I should assume that the user cannot see human readable text. Right?
 
@Firelord Adding usage details to the "installed app" documentation? Isn't that obvious? :)
 
yes..its in unreadable format
 
@Lucky It's a binary file, now I see the issue why hex data is shown. `file -i usage-20150729` shows
`usage-20150729: application/octet-stream; charset=binary`
 
6:45 AM
You say you uploaded a different file?
I got this file with no extension. So I added a .xml extension to it and opened the file
 
@Lucky Thanks for the images though.
@Lucky Open it without .xml
@Izzy Any inputs to read this binary? cat can do it, so as the app I mentioned.
 
@Firelord Same as in the above screenshots
if I open without the extension(.xml) added
 
@Lucky I see.
There is not even a extension here, so we can't think of searching to convert it into a text file easily.
Well at least that app could open it.
 
@Firelord There was something to convert Androids binary XML to normal XML. Need to check, but could be possible using aapt somehow I guess.
 
@Izzy yeah I asked a question once on Software Recommendations. But it's not a binary XML here.
 
6:55 AM
AXMLPrinter2 - Convert Android binary XML to… oh, not? Ooops, then sorry. But anyhow, try aapt – one of its tasks is to compile such resources, and another one to read that compiled stuff :)
 
@Izzy And now you can also use this link to suggest AXML. :)
 
@Firelord You mean to upvote – Done #D
 
@Izzy Nah, that's your choice. It's just that XDA thread was old so I gave you a replacement.
@Izzy BTW, "Bots should not download files here." -- that's pretty hard restriction. I couldn't download anything the second time.
 
LOL Almost. On SR, someone asked for "Software to clean computer from all installations and private files". I was about to recommend format – but OP in fact mentioned as last requirement "Leave other settings untouched", so it might not fit …
@Firelord Uh? Where's that bots thingy? Didn'r read that.
 
@Izzy lol..Restore the PC to previous date?
 
7:10 AM
@Lucky Not really. Something one better makes an image from a clean install to revert to "when the employee has left the company", I'd say.
Cleaner and safer approach. Except for format and re-install, every other cleaning approach leaves room for errors (files left somewhere, registry entries revealing "secrets", etc.).
 
@Izzy It's on your download page: android.izzysoft.de/downloads.php
All channels: Please give your (-1) point to this: android.stackexchange.com/q/116641/96277
 
 
2 hours later…
8:55 AM
@Firelord Ugh? Sure I've got some bot protection in place years ago (you won't believe what happens without that). Didn't check that recently, but I don't remember it being that strict. More than 3 times in 10 minutes or something like that, AFAIK – and checked by IP, UA, file triplet. Can check that in the evening when I'm back home (no access to that from here due to firewall).
Plus some bots are blocked generally right away (so already on 1st try) – I see no reason for e.g. bingbot, googlebot, and the likes to download zip/tar/pdf etc.
@Firelord -2 from me (and before you ask how I accomplished that: first downvote (-1 explicit), then flag as spam (-1 implicit) = -2 (sum) :D
 
9:10 AM
@Firelord As I've open-sourced the code I'm using there, you can take a look at the basics for yourself: projects.izzysoft.de/trac/histview/browser/histview/trunk/… (and watch for function limit_check($file) which checks for allowance)
dlTimeLimit is defined in the config (see projects.izzysoft.de/trac/histview/browser/histview/trunk/… for that), defaults to 5min. So is dlFileLimit (default=0, so no limitation).
What I currently cannot check are the "personal adjustments" on my server. AFAIR I've set the file limit to something like 3 (i.e. allowing max 3 downloads of the same "program" within 5min).
One of the main backgrounds here is some bots downloading all available versions in a batch, which for some of my tools is quite a lot – and doesn't make any sense (what do they need that for? 20 versions of the same app, some as old as 10 years or more? You usually want the latest and, maybe, one specific older version for some reason, but not all of them)
 
 
9 hours later…
5:56 PM
Anyone seeing app download statistics delays on Google Play Publish Console?
 
6:10 PM
@Jasper Wrong room, Jasper: you want to ask that in the Android developers chat over at SO. This is the Android users chat room :)
We don't use the "Publish Console" – we use the published apps instead :)
(most of us don't even know what the publish console is or how it looks like ;)
@Firelord if you know what this meant to ask, and even know the solution: why not updating the question accordingly and answer it (or the other way around, so the question fits your answer #D)?
@Firelord Yes – more that than bold. Most of the time, that is :)
@Firelord for that "bot download" thingy. What was the exact error you've got? I've just checked the config for that part, and it says dlFileLimit = 0. So you either get "unlimited download" there – or none at all (if your agent is listed with me as "bad bot" or "crawler").
Also, any timestamp I could check for in the logs, and what file did you download?
 
6:40 PM
@Izzy I'll respond for your replies, but it would take time because I'm engaged in hunting Q/A for editing. // As for that question about Yureka and icons: that question is low-quality, so I rather not go for answering now, until the poster at least clarifies his position that my comment is helpful and the details you asked. Because it is possible that the author's issue is something else, my edit would change his/her intent.
And answering it now would make me feel stupid if the case is otherwise because I didn't clarify the situation first. :)
 
@Firelord Yupp, thought so but wasn't entirely sure :) Sounds like a good plan.
I'll meanwhile try to find something in the logs. Don't bother about the exact error – that part is clear already. Now I just need filename and time of the event.
 
@izzy The time-stamp for the download time is around a minute before I posted this.
@Izzy I mistakenly started downloading this using "DownloadThemAll" addon (multiple connections), cancelled it and then tried downloading this, then I received that bold error.
@Izzy On a side note, would it not be a good idea if you could hyperlink the whole file name rather than doing it for the icon? I had to figure out that the link is under the icon.
 
Yupp, understandable. Checking my logs I wonder that you didn't trigger mod_evasive: 17 times in less than 20s the same file.
And you said something about 2 times, huh? Need some math classes? #D
 
@Izzy Hehe! Well, DTA to be blamed!
 
@Firelord Agreed. Though about that a couple of times already and always forgot. The part that builds the download list belongs to a different framework than the site itself, which is why I never "touched" it (not sure where else it's in use and what it might do there, could be addressed somehow different)
@Firelord OK, so we're agreed that that "bot error" is fine? You're the first who complained, and that thing is in place for more than 10 years now.
And btw, wait 5 mins and try again when it happens next time :)
(and I'm still confused what really triggered it. The message definitely is from the download framework – which has no file limit set in its config for that download page. So it's either an all or a nothing)
 
6:54 PM
@Izzy Well, yeah, but the error could be made more explanatory. I knew my DTA was causing it. But think about a Windows user using IDM or something. They would blame your site, or think some other bad things probably
@Izzy I didn't wait. I just used a different ISP, and voila, file downloaded. It seems that you're using IP address check.
 
The log is even more confusing: you've got 3xOK (200), followed by 3xDenied (403), then another 200 (uh???), a bunch of 403, and for the last one a 200 again. Very strange.
@Firelord Told you so. Actually a duplet: IP+file-name.
 
I should mention that I tried two browsers as well, though you would've seen it already in the logs.
 
For that, that is. I use a bunch of different techniques in different places, to confuse the hackers :)
I've seen 1 IP (TATA?) with that "cascade" I've just described. Didn't yet check further, as the log confused me.
 
@Izzy 200 is OK here, 403 is also OK here since I saw the warning in second download, and then I used a different browser to download so again 200. It is a different matter that I wasn't restricted from using the website but only download from it.
 
Ah, there's the other one – again TATA but a different IP range. And there are your "2 tries" (with the new IP), so it sums up to 19 – bad boy :)
 
7:00 PM
@Izzy LOL, confusion cleared.
 
@Firelord Exactly. You're just restricted from downloading the same "program" (regardless of its version) too often.
@Firelord Not on my end. I'm confused by the 200s in between of the 403s
And I'm confused the thing triggered at all, with no file count limit defined.
As no limit makes the checker return OK immediately, without querying the database at all.
No query – no rejection. Yuck. Need to get into that code again to see what that might be.
 
@Izzy You would be busy then. Good luck!
 
@Firelord Say, could it be you were using a different UA for each single request?
The only place where reject() could have fired is the badbot check. But that fires immediately and always, so no dl at all.
Nope, you didn't.
Always FF38.
 
@Izzy Well, I don't see any such option for DTA, and I only used two browsers. That's it.
@Izzy Wait until you find Chrome there!
 
I'm still trying to figure your "first run". Maybe I should include some additional "local log" info (without revealing more details to the "bad bot"). But hey, once in 10 years isn't worth that headache :)
@Firelord Eeek! Spyware! ET calling home! Beware, man all boats, ready to take off – women, children and Beatles first!
 
7:09 PM
@Izzy In that case, I'll make sure that you now end up paying for those headache free 10 years.:P
Because there is no or wouldn't be any peace in running a server.
 
(oops, forgot the quote for the last part: that was Ringo when they landed in Heathrow with some engine trouble ;)
@Firelord Ugh. I love the other way round more (getting payed for 10 years offering of free services)
@Firelord Oh, tell me …
I run more than one.
 
 
2 hours later…
8:45 PM
@Firelord What are you talking about? #D
(check the dl page again, please ;)
 
How do I understand the time-stamp in this log?
@Izzy Did check; download happens when icon is clicked, not when the file name is clicked.
 
9:20 PM
@Firelord I cannot confirm that, works for me both places. What color is the filename in?
If it's black, please reload the page – it should be green :)
@Firelord No idea, that site doesn't work for me. Pastebin.com?
Btw: you forgot to flush your last comment ;)
 
@Firelord checking
@Firelord Great :)
@Firelord which timestamp are you referring to (field name, please)?
 
@Izzy I've an idea of using 14381 combined with the times mentioned in each entry.
@Izzy Choose any lastTimeActive
 
@Firelord Huh? What number should that be? Cannot be divided by 2 even ;)
 
@Izzy It's about this question: android.stackexchange.com/q/116625/96277, and the file is for Lollipop.
 
9:27 PM
Yeah, I remember.
Timestamps in that log seem 2 digits too short.
 
See the file name 14381.... It's Unix Time. If I take first few number i..e 14381 and combine it with the time in the entries of the XML, I see something good.
 
(unixtime has 10 digits, they have 8)
 
Ah, makes sense. Prefix it with the full number, and you have "millitime" (Unixtime in ms), so devide it by 1000 then and you should have unixtime again in seconds.
Filename seems to be the baseline, so take that and add the timestamps to it. How about that?
 
@Izzy But the entries are not giving me the correct time. I don't see why
 
9:31 PM
Sorry, cannot help you further at the moment – have some other tasks to tackle...
 
The biggest problem is that file is the latest file available, and it's almost a day old. // Sure, NP.
 

« first day (1734 days earlier)      last day (2120 days later) »