Changes between v2.0 and 2.1

Jun 23, 2009 at 10:44 PM

Has anyone else noticed differences in return values between v2.0 and 2.1 - specifically with the users.getInfo() method(s)?  v2.0 returned a valid user object with all the properties correctly set, v2.1 seems to be returning partial results - not all the properties are set, and the ones that are aren't consistent for calls for different users.

Jun 24, 2009 at 2:22 PM

I've just starting using the toolkit, so my first experience with it has been with 2.1.  I have noticed that users.getInfo() and users.getStandardInfo() do not return values for most properties.  Perhaps I'll try using version 2.0 now.

Jun 24, 2009 at 4:59 PM

I originally wrote some prototype code in 2.0 to ensure my app was feasible, but it doesn't seem to be executing as expected in 2.1.  I know there are restrictions on some fields (the user has to have authorised your application in order for you to view fields) but I've noticed simple things like the name properties aren't even populated.  Could anyone else shed some light?

Coordinator
Jun 25, 2009 at 2:48 PM

Can you give me an example.  These functions did not change between 2.0 and 2.1 that I am aware of.

Jun 25, 2009 at 6:20 PM

Well the namespaces have been recapitalized at the least. facebook -> Facebook. But the DLLs are also different.

FDT 2.0 binaries: facebook.dll, facebook.desktop.dll, facebook.web.dll, Microsoft.Xml.Schema.Linq

FDT 2.1 binaries: Facebook.dll, Facebook.Controls.dll, Facebook.WebControls.dll and oddly a sample app (FacebookDesktopSample.exe)

 

In 2.0 code: I can do this new FacebookService().API by only including "using facebook.Components"

In 2.1 code: "using facebook.Components" is now "using Facebook.Compontents", but the API property can't be found.

 

2.1 is my first use of FDT, but they seem like two totally different APIs.

Coordinator
Jun 25, 2009 at 6:57 PM

Where are you getting your 2.1 binaries?

It sounds like you are using 3.0 stuff that is still in development and definitely will have a bunch of issues.  I'm wondering if something was mistakenly posted under 2.1.  Or if you are just using source from the wrong location.

Jun 25, 2009 at 8:54 PM

I've downloaded the 2.1 binaries again and am still seeing the same behaviour (the namespaces are still lower case so I'm assuming it's not v3.0 beta code).

The erroneous behaviour I'm seeing is with the user.getInfo(long) method.  When I call it with my own ID in v2.0 I get all the fields populated (as expected), but with 2.1 only the picture urls are present - everything else is null.

I can stick with v2.0, but was just wondering if anyone else had experienced the same behaviour or if I'm missing something - I've only really done some prototyping with the toolkit, yet to write a full app and dig into the inner workings of the binaries.

Thanks in advance for any help offered, although I'm going to be away for a few days so will post replies next week.

Jun 26, 2009 at 2:39 AM

Totally weird, I download 2.1 twice and got the namespaces updercased and different DLLs. Today I get the same DLLs as 2.0. I have no idea what happened there.

Coordinator
Jun 26, 2009 at 2:52 PM

I'll take a look at the getInfo method today in v2.1.

For everyone if you are seeing namespace name changes in 2.1, you don't have the correct versions.  Let me know and we can try to resolve it.  But, it does sound like dibzee is having a real issue with 2.1.  More to come.

Coordinator
Jun 26, 2009 at 3:31 PM

I just posted a new set of binaries under 2.1 that should fix the getInfo problem.  Can you try it out and let me know before I post a communication about the update.

Jun 30, 2009 at 8:42 PM

Just downloaded the latest 2.1 binaries... all works fine now, thanks.

Just out of interest, what was the cause?  I'm new to CodePlex (and open source in general) but aren't there unit / regression tests that ensure the quality of a build?  Or was something else at fault?

Thanks again.

Coordinator
Jul 9, 2009 at 2:42 PM

We do have unit tests, but they did not cover this scenario.  Sorry for the confusion.