Web manifest is not accessible after forcing SSL












6















I recently started forcing HTTPS and non-WWW forms for the URL of my React PWA through the .htaccess file, but this is apparently preventing certain applications (such as pwabuilder.com) from accessing public files of the app, such as its web manifest. That said, there are certain applications, such as Chrome mobile that allow me to access the manifest. How can I make it always accesible?



My .htaccess file is structured like this:



<IfModule mod_rewrite.c> 
RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{HTTPS} off [OR]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^www. [NC]
RewriteRule ^ https://aurora.igloo.ooo%{REQUEST_URI} [L,NE,R=301]
</IfModule>
<IfModule mod_rewrite.c>
RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{DOCUMENT_ROOT}%{REQUEST_URI} -f [OR]
RewriteCond %{DOCUMENT_ROOT}%{REQUEST_URI} -d
RewriteRule ^ - [L]

RewriteRule ^ /index.html [L]
</IfModule>


The file that pwabuilder.com can't access is hosted on https://aurora.igloo.ooo/manifest.json










share|improve this question

























  • Can you share your .htaccess, and exact path to one of the public files that are not accessible?

    – Dusan Bajic
    Dec 30 '18 at 8:44











  • I edited my question with the .htaccess file

    – Samuele Dassatti
    Dec 30 '18 at 10:04











  • There doesn't seem to be anything "wrong" with your .htaccess file that would prevent these applications from accessing these files. Just as you can access that file with any browser, so should the other application. ...Unless perhaps these other applications are not requesting the canonical URL (HTTPS + www) and do not follow redirects?! You should check your server's access log to see what requests are hitting your server and how your server is responding. Do these other applications not give you a more meaningful error?

    – MrWhite
    Jan 5 at 22:53











  • The response from https://aurora.igloo.ooo/manifest.json comes back from "nginx/1.2.1", not Apache?

    – MrWhite
    Jan 7 at 23:01






  • 1





    @David Yes - I was really just trying to draw this to the attention of the OP, as they made no reference to this in the question. If nginx is being used as a proxy then it potentially changes the focus of the question.

    – MrWhite
    Jan 8 at 23:38
















6















I recently started forcing HTTPS and non-WWW forms for the URL of my React PWA through the .htaccess file, but this is apparently preventing certain applications (such as pwabuilder.com) from accessing public files of the app, such as its web manifest. That said, there are certain applications, such as Chrome mobile that allow me to access the manifest. How can I make it always accesible?



My .htaccess file is structured like this:



<IfModule mod_rewrite.c> 
RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{HTTPS} off [OR]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^www. [NC]
RewriteRule ^ https://aurora.igloo.ooo%{REQUEST_URI} [L,NE,R=301]
</IfModule>
<IfModule mod_rewrite.c>
RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{DOCUMENT_ROOT}%{REQUEST_URI} -f [OR]
RewriteCond %{DOCUMENT_ROOT}%{REQUEST_URI} -d
RewriteRule ^ - [L]

RewriteRule ^ /index.html [L]
</IfModule>


The file that pwabuilder.com can't access is hosted on https://aurora.igloo.ooo/manifest.json










share|improve this question

























  • Can you share your .htaccess, and exact path to one of the public files that are not accessible?

    – Dusan Bajic
    Dec 30 '18 at 8:44











  • I edited my question with the .htaccess file

    – Samuele Dassatti
    Dec 30 '18 at 10:04











  • There doesn't seem to be anything "wrong" with your .htaccess file that would prevent these applications from accessing these files. Just as you can access that file with any browser, so should the other application. ...Unless perhaps these other applications are not requesting the canonical URL (HTTPS + www) and do not follow redirects?! You should check your server's access log to see what requests are hitting your server and how your server is responding. Do these other applications not give you a more meaningful error?

    – MrWhite
    Jan 5 at 22:53











  • The response from https://aurora.igloo.ooo/manifest.json comes back from "nginx/1.2.1", not Apache?

    – MrWhite
    Jan 7 at 23:01






  • 1





    @David Yes - I was really just trying to draw this to the attention of the OP, as they made no reference to this in the question. If nginx is being used as a proxy then it potentially changes the focus of the question.

    – MrWhite
    Jan 8 at 23:38














6












6








6








I recently started forcing HTTPS and non-WWW forms for the URL of my React PWA through the .htaccess file, but this is apparently preventing certain applications (such as pwabuilder.com) from accessing public files of the app, such as its web manifest. That said, there are certain applications, such as Chrome mobile that allow me to access the manifest. How can I make it always accesible?



My .htaccess file is structured like this:



<IfModule mod_rewrite.c> 
RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{HTTPS} off [OR]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^www. [NC]
RewriteRule ^ https://aurora.igloo.ooo%{REQUEST_URI} [L,NE,R=301]
</IfModule>
<IfModule mod_rewrite.c>
RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{DOCUMENT_ROOT}%{REQUEST_URI} -f [OR]
RewriteCond %{DOCUMENT_ROOT}%{REQUEST_URI} -d
RewriteRule ^ - [L]

RewriteRule ^ /index.html [L]
</IfModule>


The file that pwabuilder.com can't access is hosted on https://aurora.igloo.ooo/manifest.json










share|improve this question
















I recently started forcing HTTPS and non-WWW forms for the URL of my React PWA through the .htaccess file, but this is apparently preventing certain applications (such as pwabuilder.com) from accessing public files of the app, such as its web manifest. That said, there are certain applications, such as Chrome mobile that allow me to access the manifest. How can I make it always accesible?



My .htaccess file is structured like this:



<IfModule mod_rewrite.c> 
RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{HTTPS} off [OR]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^www. [NC]
RewriteRule ^ https://aurora.igloo.ooo%{REQUEST_URI} [L,NE,R=301]
</IfModule>
<IfModule mod_rewrite.c>
RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{DOCUMENT_ROOT}%{REQUEST_URI} -f [OR]
RewriteCond %{DOCUMENT_ROOT}%{REQUEST_URI} -d
RewriteRule ^ - [L]

RewriteRule ^ /index.html [L]
</IfModule>


The file that pwabuilder.com can't access is hosted on https://aurora.igloo.ooo/manifest.json







reactjs apache .htaccess progressive-web-apps manifest.json






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Dec 30 '18 at 10:04







Samuele Dassatti

















asked Dec 30 '18 at 0:12









Samuele DassattiSamuele Dassatti

4412




4412













  • Can you share your .htaccess, and exact path to one of the public files that are not accessible?

    – Dusan Bajic
    Dec 30 '18 at 8:44











  • I edited my question with the .htaccess file

    – Samuele Dassatti
    Dec 30 '18 at 10:04











  • There doesn't seem to be anything "wrong" with your .htaccess file that would prevent these applications from accessing these files. Just as you can access that file with any browser, so should the other application. ...Unless perhaps these other applications are not requesting the canonical URL (HTTPS + www) and do not follow redirects?! You should check your server's access log to see what requests are hitting your server and how your server is responding. Do these other applications not give you a more meaningful error?

    – MrWhite
    Jan 5 at 22:53











  • The response from https://aurora.igloo.ooo/manifest.json comes back from "nginx/1.2.1", not Apache?

    – MrWhite
    Jan 7 at 23:01






  • 1





    @David Yes - I was really just trying to draw this to the attention of the OP, as they made no reference to this in the question. If nginx is being used as a proxy then it potentially changes the focus of the question.

    – MrWhite
    Jan 8 at 23:38



















  • Can you share your .htaccess, and exact path to one of the public files that are not accessible?

    – Dusan Bajic
    Dec 30 '18 at 8:44











  • I edited my question with the .htaccess file

    – Samuele Dassatti
    Dec 30 '18 at 10:04











  • There doesn't seem to be anything "wrong" with your .htaccess file that would prevent these applications from accessing these files. Just as you can access that file with any browser, so should the other application. ...Unless perhaps these other applications are not requesting the canonical URL (HTTPS + www) and do not follow redirects?! You should check your server's access log to see what requests are hitting your server and how your server is responding. Do these other applications not give you a more meaningful error?

    – MrWhite
    Jan 5 at 22:53











  • The response from https://aurora.igloo.ooo/manifest.json comes back from "nginx/1.2.1", not Apache?

    – MrWhite
    Jan 7 at 23:01






  • 1





    @David Yes - I was really just trying to draw this to the attention of the OP, as they made no reference to this in the question. If nginx is being used as a proxy then it potentially changes the focus of the question.

    – MrWhite
    Jan 8 at 23:38

















Can you share your .htaccess, and exact path to one of the public files that are not accessible?

– Dusan Bajic
Dec 30 '18 at 8:44





Can you share your .htaccess, and exact path to one of the public files that are not accessible?

– Dusan Bajic
Dec 30 '18 at 8:44













I edited my question with the .htaccess file

– Samuele Dassatti
Dec 30 '18 at 10:04





I edited my question with the .htaccess file

– Samuele Dassatti
Dec 30 '18 at 10:04













There doesn't seem to be anything "wrong" with your .htaccess file that would prevent these applications from accessing these files. Just as you can access that file with any browser, so should the other application. ...Unless perhaps these other applications are not requesting the canonical URL (HTTPS + www) and do not follow redirects?! You should check your server's access log to see what requests are hitting your server and how your server is responding. Do these other applications not give you a more meaningful error?

– MrWhite
Jan 5 at 22:53





There doesn't seem to be anything "wrong" with your .htaccess file that would prevent these applications from accessing these files. Just as you can access that file with any browser, so should the other application. ...Unless perhaps these other applications are not requesting the canonical URL (HTTPS + www) and do not follow redirects?! You should check your server's access log to see what requests are hitting your server and how your server is responding. Do these other applications not give you a more meaningful error?

– MrWhite
Jan 5 at 22:53













The response from https://aurora.igloo.ooo/manifest.json comes back from "nginx/1.2.1", not Apache?

– MrWhite
Jan 7 at 23:01





The response from https://aurora.igloo.ooo/manifest.json comes back from "nginx/1.2.1", not Apache?

– MrWhite
Jan 7 at 23:01




1




1





@David Yes - I was really just trying to draw this to the attention of the OP, as they made no reference to this in the question. If nginx is being used as a proxy then it potentially changes the focus of the question.

– MrWhite
Jan 8 at 23:38





@David Yes - I was really just trying to draw this to the attention of the OP, as they made no reference to this in the question. If nginx is being used as a proxy then it potentially changes the focus of the question.

– MrWhite
Jan 8 at 23:38












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















3





+100









aurora.igloo.ooo has a strange server and preventing some requests from accessing manifest.json.

First time when I clicked your link, I saw the manifest.json. Then I called the main-page by removing the filepath, clicked back in browser-history to see the manifest again and got this shown (with http-response-code 200):



enter image description here



Looking at it in the network-console it's still getting more confusing but also leads to the source of the error:



enter image description here



It's complaining about missing enabling of javascript, so they make some weird things with javascript and probably some hidden redirect too (else the response code would be 3xx). Perhaps they never want the manifest being accessed from outside and it's not configured properly and can be seen under some conditions.



I don't have a quick solution for your problem but it's quite obvious that some clients can't access the manifest and you've to search for another solution. If you're working for aurora.igloo.ooo you've to speak with the frontend-developers and/or server-admins to change something, else you've to offer your own manifest-file. Also it's possible that they offer a solution for the problem, but for that you've either to have access to some FAQ or knowledge-base or you've to contact the support.






share|improve this answer

































    1














    Having read about manifest-files on desktop it would force another user-experience and at least in chrome change the complete window. While that might be cool for some special pages it also could be confusing.

    Here are the three links I read about it:




    1. https://developers.google.com/web/fundamentals/web-app-manifest/

    2. https://developers.google.com/web/fundamentals/app-install-banners/

    3. https://developers.google.com/web/progressive-web-apps/desktop


    My assumption is that aurora.igloo.ooo never want to break with common browsing experience by showing a special app-window on desktop, therefore they prevent the manifest from loading properly on desktop.

    I just read the first time about it, so the technical behavior like I understood it might be wrong or it's not the complete technical background.

    At least the impression I got is that on desktop it should be considered twice if a website shall run as web-app. If you choose this solution nevertheless, you probably need still find more information about it but the links I posted might be a good start and offer still further details and links.



    Another reason to decide against a web-app for desktop might be the compatibility between browsers, as support of technical options is very differing:
    https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions/manifest.json#Browser_compatibility






    share|improve this answer























      Your Answer






      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
      StackExchange.snippets.init();
      });
      });
      }, "code-snippets");

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "1"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53974325%2fweb-manifest-is-not-accessible-after-forcing-ssl%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes








      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      3





      +100









      aurora.igloo.ooo has a strange server and preventing some requests from accessing manifest.json.

      First time when I clicked your link, I saw the manifest.json. Then I called the main-page by removing the filepath, clicked back in browser-history to see the manifest again and got this shown (with http-response-code 200):



      enter image description here



      Looking at it in the network-console it's still getting more confusing but also leads to the source of the error:



      enter image description here



      It's complaining about missing enabling of javascript, so they make some weird things with javascript and probably some hidden redirect too (else the response code would be 3xx). Perhaps they never want the manifest being accessed from outside and it's not configured properly and can be seen under some conditions.



      I don't have a quick solution for your problem but it's quite obvious that some clients can't access the manifest and you've to search for another solution. If you're working for aurora.igloo.ooo you've to speak with the frontend-developers and/or server-admins to change something, else you've to offer your own manifest-file. Also it's possible that they offer a solution for the problem, but for that you've either to have access to some FAQ or knowledge-base or you've to contact the support.






      share|improve this answer






























        3





        +100









        aurora.igloo.ooo has a strange server and preventing some requests from accessing manifest.json.

        First time when I clicked your link, I saw the manifest.json. Then I called the main-page by removing the filepath, clicked back in browser-history to see the manifest again and got this shown (with http-response-code 200):



        enter image description here



        Looking at it in the network-console it's still getting more confusing but also leads to the source of the error:



        enter image description here



        It's complaining about missing enabling of javascript, so they make some weird things with javascript and probably some hidden redirect too (else the response code would be 3xx). Perhaps they never want the manifest being accessed from outside and it's not configured properly and can be seen under some conditions.



        I don't have a quick solution for your problem but it's quite obvious that some clients can't access the manifest and you've to search for another solution. If you're working for aurora.igloo.ooo you've to speak with the frontend-developers and/or server-admins to change something, else you've to offer your own manifest-file. Also it's possible that they offer a solution for the problem, but for that you've either to have access to some FAQ or knowledge-base or you've to contact the support.






        share|improve this answer




























          3





          +100







          3





          +100



          3




          +100





          aurora.igloo.ooo has a strange server and preventing some requests from accessing manifest.json.

          First time when I clicked your link, I saw the manifest.json. Then I called the main-page by removing the filepath, clicked back in browser-history to see the manifest again and got this shown (with http-response-code 200):



          enter image description here



          Looking at it in the network-console it's still getting more confusing but also leads to the source of the error:



          enter image description here



          It's complaining about missing enabling of javascript, so they make some weird things with javascript and probably some hidden redirect too (else the response code would be 3xx). Perhaps they never want the manifest being accessed from outside and it's not configured properly and can be seen under some conditions.



          I don't have a quick solution for your problem but it's quite obvious that some clients can't access the manifest and you've to search for another solution. If you're working for aurora.igloo.ooo you've to speak with the frontend-developers and/or server-admins to change something, else you've to offer your own manifest-file. Also it's possible that they offer a solution for the problem, but for that you've either to have access to some FAQ or knowledge-base or you've to contact the support.






          share|improve this answer















          aurora.igloo.ooo has a strange server and preventing some requests from accessing manifest.json.

          First time when I clicked your link, I saw the manifest.json. Then I called the main-page by removing the filepath, clicked back in browser-history to see the manifest again and got this shown (with http-response-code 200):



          enter image description here



          Looking at it in the network-console it's still getting more confusing but also leads to the source of the error:



          enter image description here



          It's complaining about missing enabling of javascript, so they make some weird things with javascript and probably some hidden redirect too (else the response code would be 3xx). Perhaps they never want the manifest being accessed from outside and it's not configured properly and can be seen under some conditions.



          I don't have a quick solution for your problem but it's quite obvious that some clients can't access the manifest and you've to search for another solution. If you're working for aurora.igloo.ooo you've to speak with the frontend-developers and/or server-admins to change something, else you've to offer your own manifest-file. Also it's possible that they offer a solution for the problem, but for that you've either to have access to some FAQ or knowledge-base or you've to contact the support.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Jan 8 at 1:52

























          answered Jan 7 at 11:55









          DavidDavid

          2,12122028




          2,12122028

























              1














              Having read about manifest-files on desktop it would force another user-experience and at least in chrome change the complete window. While that might be cool for some special pages it also could be confusing.

              Here are the three links I read about it:




              1. https://developers.google.com/web/fundamentals/web-app-manifest/

              2. https://developers.google.com/web/fundamentals/app-install-banners/

              3. https://developers.google.com/web/progressive-web-apps/desktop


              My assumption is that aurora.igloo.ooo never want to break with common browsing experience by showing a special app-window on desktop, therefore they prevent the manifest from loading properly on desktop.

              I just read the first time about it, so the technical behavior like I understood it might be wrong or it's not the complete technical background.

              At least the impression I got is that on desktop it should be considered twice if a website shall run as web-app. If you choose this solution nevertheless, you probably need still find more information about it but the links I posted might be a good start and offer still further details and links.



              Another reason to decide against a web-app for desktop might be the compatibility between browsers, as support of technical options is very differing:
              https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions/manifest.json#Browser_compatibility






              share|improve this answer




























                1














                Having read about manifest-files on desktop it would force another user-experience and at least in chrome change the complete window. While that might be cool for some special pages it also could be confusing.

                Here are the three links I read about it:




                1. https://developers.google.com/web/fundamentals/web-app-manifest/

                2. https://developers.google.com/web/fundamentals/app-install-banners/

                3. https://developers.google.com/web/progressive-web-apps/desktop


                My assumption is that aurora.igloo.ooo never want to break with common browsing experience by showing a special app-window on desktop, therefore they prevent the manifest from loading properly on desktop.

                I just read the first time about it, so the technical behavior like I understood it might be wrong or it's not the complete technical background.

                At least the impression I got is that on desktop it should be considered twice if a website shall run as web-app. If you choose this solution nevertheless, you probably need still find more information about it but the links I posted might be a good start and offer still further details and links.



                Another reason to decide against a web-app for desktop might be the compatibility between browsers, as support of technical options is very differing:
                https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions/manifest.json#Browser_compatibility






                share|improve this answer


























                  1












                  1








                  1







                  Having read about manifest-files on desktop it would force another user-experience and at least in chrome change the complete window. While that might be cool for some special pages it also could be confusing.

                  Here are the three links I read about it:




                  1. https://developers.google.com/web/fundamentals/web-app-manifest/

                  2. https://developers.google.com/web/fundamentals/app-install-banners/

                  3. https://developers.google.com/web/progressive-web-apps/desktop


                  My assumption is that aurora.igloo.ooo never want to break with common browsing experience by showing a special app-window on desktop, therefore they prevent the manifest from loading properly on desktop.

                  I just read the first time about it, so the technical behavior like I understood it might be wrong or it's not the complete technical background.

                  At least the impression I got is that on desktop it should be considered twice if a website shall run as web-app. If you choose this solution nevertheless, you probably need still find more information about it but the links I posted might be a good start and offer still further details and links.



                  Another reason to decide against a web-app for desktop might be the compatibility between browsers, as support of technical options is very differing:
                  https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions/manifest.json#Browser_compatibility






                  share|improve this answer













                  Having read about manifest-files on desktop it would force another user-experience and at least in chrome change the complete window. While that might be cool for some special pages it also could be confusing.

                  Here are the three links I read about it:




                  1. https://developers.google.com/web/fundamentals/web-app-manifest/

                  2. https://developers.google.com/web/fundamentals/app-install-banners/

                  3. https://developers.google.com/web/progressive-web-apps/desktop


                  My assumption is that aurora.igloo.ooo never want to break with common browsing experience by showing a special app-window on desktop, therefore they prevent the manifest from loading properly on desktop.

                  I just read the first time about it, so the technical behavior like I understood it might be wrong or it's not the complete technical background.

                  At least the impression I got is that on desktop it should be considered twice if a website shall run as web-app. If you choose this solution nevertheless, you probably need still find more information about it but the links I posted might be a good start and offer still further details and links.



                  Another reason to decide against a web-app for desktop might be the compatibility between browsers, as support of technical options is very differing:
                  https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions/manifest.json#Browser_compatibility







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Jan 8 at 1:56









                  DavidDavid

                  2,12122028




                  2,12122028






























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53974325%2fweb-manifest-is-not-accessible-after-forcing-ssl%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Mossoró

                      Error while reading .h5 file using the rhdf5 package in R

                      Pushsharp Apns notification error: 'InvalidToken'