Ultimately it's the call of whoever wrote the API and what was their
intention. I tend to agree that the fallback is only meant to deal with
cases where the scope can't do anything about it. When sending empty, it
might very well send the fallback URL instead.
What's the argument against the above? Maybe it's API and/or docs that
need to be amended to make it more clear?
I'm not saying no, but it's not our decision alone.
** Changed in: unity8 (Ubuntu)
Status: In Progress => Opinion
** Also affects: unity-scopes-api (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1531913
Title:
Fallback image not shown when no image specified
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/canonical-devices-system-image/+bug/1531913/+subscriptions
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
