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
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to unity8 in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1531913
Title:
Fallback image not shown when no image specified
Status in Canonical System Image:
Confirmed
Status in unity-scopes-api package in Ubuntu:
New
Status in unity8 package in Ubuntu:
Opinion
Bug description:
In fixing bug #1520631 in unity-scope-click, as the store server will
start allowing uploads with no icon specified, it was discovered that
Unity8 is not showing the fallback when we do not include the artwork.
Instead, it is only shown if we specify invalid artwork. This seems
wrong, and instead I would think the fallback would be displayed
whenever no other artwork is provided.
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/canonical-devices-system-image/+bug/1531913/+subscriptions
--
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages
Post to : touch-packages@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
