** Changed in: canonical-devices-system-image
Status: Fix Committed => Fix Released
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to unity-scopes-api in
Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1531913
Title:
Fallback
** Changed in: canonical-devices-system-image
Milestone: backlog => 13
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to unity-scopes-api in
Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1531913
Title:
Fallback image not shown
** Changed in: canonical-devices-system-image
Status: Confirmed => Fix Committed
** Changed in: unity-scopes-api (Ubuntu)
Status: Fix Committed => Fix Released
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to
** Branch linked: lp:~ci-train-bot/unity8/unity8-ubuntu-xenial-
landing-064
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to unity-scopes-api in
Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1531913
Title:
Fallback image not
This bug was fixed in the package unity8 - 8.11+16.04.20160212-0ubuntu1
---
unity8 (8.11+16.04.20160212-0ubuntu1) xenial; urgency=medium
[ Albert Astals Cid ]
* Do not use components in card creator generated code
* Forward the makesurevisible signal from the inner preview
** Changed in: unity-scopes-api (Ubuntu)
Status: In Progress => Fix Committed
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to unity-scopes-api in
Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1531913
Title:
Fallback image
W dniu 17.01.2016 o 16:06, Michi Henning pisze:
> What's the problem with doc? If it isn't right, I'll fix it.
The question is whether fallback was supposed to be used when the scope
did not send a url for the image, vs. if whatever it did send failed to
load.
--
You received this bug
If the card requires an image and the scope doesn't provide one, the
fallback should be shown.
If the scope does specify an image, but it doesn't load, the fallback
should be shown too.
That makes the most sense to me.
** Changed in: unity-scopes-api (Ubuntu)
Assignee: (unassigned) =>
I've pushed an MR with the doc update for scopes API here:
https://code.launchpad.net/~michihenning/unity-scopes-api/doc-
fix/+merge/283001
** Changed in: unity-scopes-api (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => In Progress
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
** Changed in: unity8 (Ubuntu)
Status: Opinion => In Progress
** Branch linked: lp:~michihenning/unity-scopes-api/doc-fix
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to unity-scopes-api in
Ubuntu.
The intention was that a scope can specify a specific fallback image.
That image should be shown when the normal image load returns an error
or an empty image (zero-length ByteArray, or whatever type it is).
This allows the scope to specify a specific fallback image that might be
needed to keep
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
> If it's the image to be shown when there is an error loading the image, then
> the API is wrong,
No, it is exactly that. That is the reason why fallback was introduced for, in
case the art image fails to load (server is overloaded, resource is gone, etc)
and then we show a fallback.
It is
yeah... I tend to agree that the fallback should be loaded if the
specified artwork fails to load. if the scope returns a empty icon, that
won't produce a failure. The dash can display what the scope requested
just fine. No need for a fallback.
I totally get Rodney's point too, in the end it's
The new code is at
https://code.launchpad.net/~aacid/unity8/fallback_for_empty/+merge/282002
I still disagree with this solution and with Rodney expectation of what
the fallback image does given how the API is documented, but it's not my
call to decide if this goes in or not.
** Changed in:
** Changed in: unity8 (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Triaged
** Changed in: unity8 (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided => Medium
** Changed in: unity8 (Ubuntu)
Assignee: (unassigned) => Albert Astals Cid (aacid)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch
Doing that will make it not possible to actually specify a blank artwork
if we ever want one. -> if we specify a fallback image
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to unity8 in Ubuntu.
Doing that will make it not possible to actually specify a blank artwork
if we ever want one.
Whether that is useful or not I don't know :D
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to unity8 in Ubuntu.
Specifying a blank artwork is still possible, and still not sensible.
One can always specify a 1x1 transparent image as the artwork for
intentionally blank space. :)
We don't detect that we are sending an empty image. We just specify the
fallback and expect it to work as a fallback should. If a
** Changed in: canonical-devices-system-image
Importance: Undecided => Medium
** Changed in: canonical-devices-system-image
Status: New => Confirmed
** Changed in: canonical-devices-system-image
Milestone: None => backlog
** Changed in: canonical-devices-system-image
20 matches
Mail list logo
