AICC cross domain issues in v17 and v18
February 5, 2019 12:00 AM
Good afternoon all. High-level question...has anyone run into CORS or other communication issues when creating AICC cross domain courses with v17 or 18?
Background...for customers who don't want to load our SCORM course content on their LMS, we host the AICC content on our company webserver, and provide the AICC structure files to our customers to import the course into their LMS. Easy peasy...at least up until recently. Any course I update or create with v16 (or prior) works just fine. If I create new, or update a working v16 course, with v17 or 18, we get communication errors. It's like our redirector ASP file is no longer able to provide sufficient permissions for the course to communicate cross-domain to the LMS. I've replicated this issue on SCORM Cloud and the only commonality I can find is post v16 simply don't work.
Just wondering if anyone else has run into this. Perhaps Trivantis has changed something in their published content? Maybe a new redirector file is necessary to work with it? Other?
Discussion (7)
what are the publishing options you are using for each version? (I remember something changed in the AICC publishing options along the way that changed the way I had to publish AICC content when I was using myLearning and the cross-domain issue)... might be a good place to start with the troubleshooting if you haven't already?
hmmm, having a hard time recalling the exact issue/resolution I had, but it almost seems like it was something before v17, so I may be sending you down rabbit holes... but the 2 things I remember working with was using the javascript title manager, which like you said shouldn't be an issue. The other thing I do remember playing with was the cross-domain - possibly even not using the cross-domain redirector, and just selecting that the course resides on the same network as the LMS. (even though in my case the AICC content did not live on the same server as the LMS...). Long-shot, but worth a shot if you don't have any other options... did you log a ticket with Trivantis for this by chance? (I believe the support is now required with the annual purchase... so may as well put it to use. ; )
cool! glad it helped! Maybe it works in some scenarios, but not others?
I think I remember going through when I was troubleshooting and checking and un-checking every possible combination of settings to find what worked best... so I had a hard time remembering what settings I eventually settled on. ; )
undefined
That's part of the head scratcher for me. We're using the same CD settings as in all our working v16 courses. The CD redirector URL is identical in all working and non-working courses.
We've attempted to make some adjustments to that redirector ASP script in an attempt to open up the domains it gives permission to write to. So far those changes haven't provided any new results.
I can't quite remember - it was at a previous job when I was using AICC vs SCORM as I do now, so I can't quite remember the specific settings - I would leave off seamless for sure - don't think html5 would be an issue. What about the cross-domain settings?
So you know how you sometimes test a scenario "just to say you did", but expect for it not to work? Per your suggestion ,we just tested a standard publish (non-cross domain enabled) AICC course and it launched, tracked, and completed! What universe are we living in?!?
We're about to test a few more courses, but the early result looks good. Thanks for suggesting that Adam, I'm likely to have never tried that.
If a non-CD course works from a different domain as the LMS, why does Trivantis keep this publish setting in the application? Especially if it seems to actually break the intended functionality.
Adam - Thanks for the response. Do you happen to recall which publish settings you had to change to keep the AICC CD working?
I've experimented with a number of combinations involving Seamless on and off and HTML5-only on and off. All combinations of those settings produced the same results in v17 and 18. I've always used the JavaScript player instead of the Java, but I guess that's a non-issue moving forward.
Discussions have been disabled for this post