Body: <p>We use Authorize.net for payment processing.  Recurring donations have stopped being recorded in CiviCRM, although they are still being processed by Authorize.  The "context" field in civicrm for the failing transactions says:
  {"IDS_request_uri":"/civicrm/payment/ipn/3"}</p>
  
  <p>Can someone tell me what this means?  </p>
  
  <p>Any other hints for me to troubleshoot why ARB transactions suddenly stopped getting recorded in CiviCRM?</p>
  
  <p>Thanks so much!</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-04-04T19:33:28.030Z
Comments.Text: What version of civi are you using. Did the change of behaviour change after an upgrade?
Comments.UserDisplayName: petednz - fuzion
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-04-05T20:18:27.113Z
Comments.Text: Thanks, but no.  We are using v. 4.7.29.  The problem did not coincide with an upgrade.  We think we're zeroing on the problem having to do with http to https redirects but I still wish I better understood the contents of the "context" field.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Leslie Matthews
Tags: <civicontribute><payment-processor><recurring-contributions><authorize.net>
Title: How to interpret "context" field in civicrm_system_log
ThreadText: # How to interpret "context" field in civicrm_system_log
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2018-04-04)
  
  We use Authorize.net for payment processing. Recurring donations have stopped being recorded in CiviCRM, although they are still being processed by Authorize. The "context" field in civicrm for the failing transactions says:
  {"IDS\_request\_uri":"/civicrm/payment/ipn/3"}
  
  Can someone tell me what this means?
  
  Any other hints for me to troubleshoot why ARB transactions suddenly stopped getting recorded in CiviCRM?
  
  Thanks so much!
  
  **Tags:** civicontribute, payment-processor, recurring-contributions, authorize.net
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: What version of civi are you using. Did the change of behaviour change after an upgrade?  
  > **username_0**: Thanks, but no.  We are using v. 4.7.29.  The problem did not coincide with an upgrade.  We think we're zeroing on the problem having to do with http to https redirects but I still wish I better understood the contents of the "context" field.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 0 answers
  
  