New App Portal Site

[goody612]

We currently have App Portal connected to SCCM, but are standing up a new App Portal instance and want to connect it to the same SCCM.  Is it possible to have two separate App Portal instances connected to the same SCCM?

If not is there anything that needs to be done to connect the new App Portal site to SCCM such as removing the connection from the other App Portal?

[jdempsey]

You can connect more than one App Portal site to the same SCCM environment.  This normally happens in situations where the customer wants both a DEV and PROD instance of App Portal, but there is only a production instance of SCCM.  In such a case, it's best practice to name catalog items such that they are unique between the two App Portal instances (e.g. "DEV - Adobe Reader XI" vs. "Adobe Reader XI").  This ensures there are no collection/deployment naming conflicts in SCCM.  Your situation sounds slightly different, so that naming approach may not work as well for you; however, one thing to note is that the collection/deployment naming is based on the catalog item title when the deployment is added to the catalog item.  If you later go back and change the title of the catalog item, it does not update the collection/deployment names.  So you could initially name your catalog items NEW-<SoftwareTitle> when creating the deployments, and then rename them without the "NEW-" in front.

[goody612]

Thanks for the info.  Was running into an issue with the new App Portal not talking to the web service, so was just making sure it was even possible before I went too much further with troubleshooting the web service issue.  

[goody612]

Is there anything to specifically check when getting this error during testing of the ConfigMgr settings via App Portal:

"SCCM settings are not valid as App Portal could not communicate with its Web Service"

[CharlesW]

Ignore the error. This will occur any time that you specify a config Manager (Current Branch) server under the SCCM 2012 deployment settings.. The test button returns an error, but the integration will still work as expected.

[goody612]

So I have it all configured under the ConfigMgr tab.  When I run the Check from the General screen I get the following:

[CharlesW]

After you hit "Check" you should see some additional information written to website.log.. Can you tell me what the message is? This could possibly be related to authentication... You might also check to see if you can hit the web service in a browser from the App Portal machine.. For example http://<server>/esdwebservice/esdwebservice.asmx

[goody612]

In the log I am seeing the following error:

Error Connecting: The underlying connection was closed: An unexpected error occurred on a send.

I also did verify that I can hit the web service from a browser on the App Portal system.  

[CharlesW]

Sounds like a TLS problem, or something related to https. Under settings ->website, what do you have "web service protocol" and "web service port" set to? If these are set to https/443 then be sure that you have an https binding setup on the server you are trying to connect to.

One other thing.. What version of App Portal are you using?

[goody612]

This particular instance is App Portal 2017 R1.  This is what the requested settings are currently set to:

Really appreciate the quick responses.

[CharlesW]

That might be your problem... You have the web service protocol set to "https", but the web service port is set to 80. Try setting the web service port to 443 if you want to communicate over https.

[goody612]

Thanks I did change that.  Still getting the same error, but it has to be something in our environment.  Thanks for the help!

[jdempsey · Accepted solution]

We took a look at this today and found that when accessing the ESDWebService from a browser on the App Portal server, it was prompting for credentials (i.e. browser wasn't automatically passing the credentials of the calling user).  We added the SCCM server into the Local Intranet zone within the browser settings and then ensured the ESDWebService was configured for HTTP on port 80, and that resolved the issue.