Argh - if twitter is going to reject a dup status, I need to know what it's a dup of, not just the last status.
On Oct 19, 2:47 am, Dave Sherohman <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 04:48:13PM -0700, Naveen wrote: > > I agree. A silent failure seems like the wrong behavior.. It should > > return an error if the tweet has failed to post. > > It's actually relatively benign in this specific case, since you can > chop the status text down to 140 characters before submitting it, thus > ensuring that it won't be rejected for length. > > However, Twitter has also gotten a bit more strict with blocking > duplicate statuses. While testing my fix for the "silently reject over- > length status text" problem, I was getting a lot of failures when I knew > I was sending updates that were under 140 in length. It turned out that > any update which was a duplicate of another update sent within the last > hour (if not longer) was also being silently rejected in the same > manner, even if it was not the same as the user's most recent status. > This is not a failure mode which can be reliably anticipated or > compensated for prior to submitting the update, therefore Twitter *must* > provide some indication in the response that it was rejected. > > There may also be other circumstances in which an update will silently > fail which I haven't yet discovered. > > My current attempt at working around this is to compare the returned > status ID against the highest ID previously seen by my application and, > if the returned ID is not greater than the previous highest, reporting > that the update was "rejected for an unspecified reason". I don't like > being unable to tell my users why it failed, but that seems to be the > most reliable way of detecting these silent update failures until/ > unless Twitter provides notification that the update was rejected and > at least a hint as to why. > > > Also this change was made without any announcement that I recall > > seeing or can find now. This is a pretty significant change in > > behavior for existing clients.. We are failing to post because people > > are not getting an error and they believe it is our problem. > > Agreed. That is a definite problem. > > -- > Dave Sherohman
