You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@shindig.apache.org by Raymond Auge <ra...@liferay.com> on 2008/04/15 22:59:25 UTC
compliance tests
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.
Re: compliance tests
Posted by Raymond Auge <ra...@liferay.com>.
Perhaps the spec list should be made aware of the ambiguity here:
opensocial.DataRequest.PeopleRequestFields = {
/**
* An array of
* <a href="opensocial.Person.Field.html">
* <code>opensocial.Person.Field</code></a>
* specifying what profile data to fetch
* for each of the person objects. The server will always include
* ID, NAME, and THUMBNAIL_URL.
*
* @member opensocial.DataRequest.PeopleRequestFields
*/
PROFILE_DETAILS : 'profileDetail',
The error results because the pluralization is different. A developers
assumption will be wrong (as proven by the error in the test itself).
Raymond
On Wed, 2008-04-16 at 08:59 -0400, Raymond Auge 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 <ra...@liferay.com> 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.
Raymond Augé
Software Engineer
Liferay, Inc.
Enterprise. Open Source. For Life.
Re: compliance tests
Posted by Chris Chabot <ch...@xs4all.nl>.
Maybe it would be good to submit that to the opensocial spec list? I
bet there will be hundreds of developers who will follow suit here :)
(i guess a opensocial-0.7 compatibility wrapper could map single form
to the plural form?)
On Apr 16, 2008, at 3:24 PM, Cassie wrote:
> 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 <ra...@liferay.com>
> 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 <ra...@liferay.com>
>> 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.
Re: compliance tests
Posted by Cassie <do...@google.com>.
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 <ra...@liferay.com> 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 <ra...@liferay.com> 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.
Re: compliance tests
Posted by Raymond Auge <ra...@liferay.com>.
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 <ra...@liferay.com> 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.
Re: compliance tests
Posted by Cassie <do...@google.com>.
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 <ra...@liferay.com> 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.
>
Re: compliance tests
Posted by Raymond Auge <ra...@liferay.com>.
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.
Re: compliance tests
Posted by Raymond Auge <ra...@liferay.com>.
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.
Re: compliance tests
Posted by Chris Chabot <ch...@xs4all.nl>.
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.