lol. that's hilarious. it's really a typo in the spec itself, but
alas, the spec is what we follow.
thanks for the patch i submitted it to the opensocial-resources svn just now.
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Raymond Auge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As it turns out, after much scouring of the shindig codebase, I realized to
> my chagrin that the problem is that the compliancetests.xml (from
> code.google.com) is NOT compliant. In fact it has a small bug which caused
> the problem.
>
> See Patch attached.
>
> Ray
>
> On Wed, 2008-04-16 at 11:12 +0200, Cassie wrote:
>
> Okay, best bet is to file a jira issue and we can look into it.
> I'll see if I can find it now...
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 11:22 PM, Raymond Auge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The problem is even if I specify the fields to return:
>>
>>
>> personOpts[opensocial.DataRequest.PeopleRequestFields.PROFILE_DETAILS] =
>> [opensocial.Person.Field.AGE,
>> opensocial.Person.Field.NAME,
>> opensocial.Person.Field.GENDER,
>> opensocial.Person.Field.PROFILE_URL,
>> opensocial.Person.Field.THUMBNAIL_URL,
>> opensocial.Person.Field.STATUS];
>>
>> I only ever get a Set<String> profileDetails which contains:
>>
>> ["id","name","thumbnailUrl"]
>>
>>
>> Ray
>>
>> On Tue, 2008-04-15 at 17:12 -0400, Raymond Auge wrote:
>>
>>> This is not using the sample backend... it's using a custom
>>> implementation... the problem is that
>>>
>>> ["id","name","thumbnailUrl"]
>>>
>>> are the only fields ever requested.
>>>
>>> Set<String> profileDetails only ever contains those three items... of
>>> course if I add the fields explicitly they are available, but that isn't
>>> really what the problem is...
>>>
>>>
>>> Ray
>>>
>>> On Tue, 2008-04-15 at 23:07 +0200, Chris Chabot wrote:
>>>
>>> > The basic samplecontainer xml file has no data in those fields, and if
>>> > the field is empty (null) it's not included in the json thats returned.
>>> >
>>> > If you'd open the xml file & added those fields, the warning would go
>>> > away :)
>>> >
>>> > -- Chris
>>> >
>>> > On Apr 15, 2008, at 10:59 PM, Raymond Auge wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > If I add more supported fields to syndicators.js
>>> > >
>>> > > e.g.
>>> > >
>>> > > "person" : ["id", "name", "profileUrl", "thumbnailUrl",
>>> > > "nickname", "emails", "gender", "phoneNumbers", "timeZone"],
>>> > >
>>> > > when I run the compliancetest.xml (which seems to pass all the
>>> > > supported
>>> > > Fields in the request) I get:
>>> > >
>>> > > Your object did not have a result for the nickname field. This may be
>>> > > confusing for users.
>>> > > ...
>>> > >
>>> > > even though the backend does support it... seems that the fields
>>> > > never
>>> > > are passed in the request:
>>> > >
>>> > > e.g.
>>> > >
>>> > > [{"type":"FETCH_PEOPLE","idSpec":"OWNER","profileDetail":
>>> > > ["id
>>> > > ","name
>>> > > ","thumbnailUrl"],"sortOrder":"topFriends","filter":"all","first":
>>> > > 0,"max":20},{"type":"FETCH_PEOPLE","idSpec":"VIEWER","profileDetail":
>>> > > ["id
>>> > > ","name
>>> > > ","thumbnailUrl"],"sortOrder":"topFriends","filter":"all","first":
>>> > > 0,"max":20}]
>>> > > [{"type":"FETCH_PEOPLE","idSpec":"VIEWER","profileDetail":
>>> > > ["id
>>> > > ","name
>>> > > ","thumbnailUrl"],"sortOrder":"topFriends","filter":"all","first":
>>> > > 0,"max":20},{"type":"FETCH_PERSON_APP_DATA","idSpec":"VIEWER","keys":
>>> > > ["goodKey"]}]
>>> > >
>>> > > I take it this is known?
>>> > >
>>> > > Raymond Augé
>>> > > Software Engineer
>>> > > Liferay, Inc.
>>> > > Enterprise. Open Source. For Life.
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> Raymond Augé
>>> Software Engineer
>>> Liferay, Inc.
>>> Enterprise. Open Source. For Life.
>>
>> Raymond Augé
>> Software Engineer
>> Liferay, Inc.
>> Enterprise. Open Source. For Life.
>>
>
> Raymond Augé
> Software Engineer
> Liferay, Inc.
> Enterprise. Open Source. For Life.
