Web access from widget suddenly gives "failed to open [60]"

My Watch consists of a Watch App and a widget.
The App and the widget use an external source to get data.

I updated the App to make use of a different API, but the widget is not allowed to connect anymore.
The App can fetch the data without problems, but not the widget.
From the log (url replaced with google.com):
01-18 19:36:48.157 : Info / CHROMIUM ( 20203 : 20257 ) : [INFO:url_request.cc(639)] url:https://google.com

01-18 19:37:47.913 : Info / Starfish ( 20448 : 20448 ) : 1.0.0/200923_f4c06d3: failed to open[60] https://google.com

As you can see, the App request has no problems with chromium.
The widget request has “failed to open[60]”.
Does anybody know about this error?


Please share a code snippet of the call.

Thank you,

Hi Iqbal,

thank you for your reply.

This is the code from the widget, that produces the error:

    var xhttp = new XMLHttpRequest();
    xhttp.onreadystatechange = function() {
        if (this.readyState === 4 && this.status === 200) {
            jsondata = JSON.parse(this.responseText);
    xhttp.open("GET", "https://coinhunters.de/api/test", true);

I investigated a bit more, and the server seems to be the problem.
This code works fine with e.g. the https://api.coincap.io/v2/assets or even the https://jsonplaceholder.typicode.com/posts/ API, but not with my own server.
The response from my server looks exactly the same, content-type is json, encoding type is utf-8. I can not find the difference.

If i try this code in the main Watch App, i can fetch and parse the result without problem. The error only shows up in the widget, where the call is made with starfish.
The main app seems to make the request with chromium.
Starfish seems to have a problem with my server, but i don’t see it.

It would already be a big help to know, what “failed to open[60]” means or how I can further debug this.

If you haven’t added Internet Privilege, please add and try again.

<tizen:privilege name="http://tizen.org/privilege/internet"/>


yes i have that, it works on other URLs, but not on this one. the response seems similar in the browser though, only starfish sees a difference appearently -.-