View Issue Details
ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0013444 | mantisbt | api soap | public | 2011-10-27 03:32 | 2016-03-12 16:13 |
Reporter | vboctor | Assigned To | |||
Priority | normal | Severity | feature | Reproducibility | have not tried |
Status | confirmed | Resolution | open | ||
Product Version | 1.2.8 | ||||
Summary | 0013444: Make avatars accessible to client applications | ||||
Description | The same way we expose file attachments, we should expose the user avatars. The advantage of MantisBT wrapping gravatar or whatever implementation is the following:
| ||||
Tags | avatar | ||||
Sounds like a good feature to me. |
|
I think that MantisBT should send a reference - a URL - to the client, including both http and https values. Sending a base64-encoded value of the avatar can get messy . But shouldn't this be done as part of 0013445 ? |
|
By reviewing the gravatar API it seems that there are multiple parameters we can take into account - http://en.gravatar.com/site/implement/images/ . I think we should return just the hash and let the client worry about exactly what to retrieve. |
|
Not so sure about that. The avatar settings are defined in MantisBT config_inc.php level, so I don't think we'd want a SOAP client displaying 'monster' default avatars if we've set that to 'identicon'. Moreover, in the new context of Avatar plugins, we may have an implementation which does not rely on a hash (e.g. local storage). |
|
As I said in the description of the plugin, it should look as follows: http://mantisbt/avatar.php?user_id=123&size=32 The above urls can be embedded in an image tag for example. I believe they should always return an avatar (assuming user threshold meets the bar). It is up to the client to check if show_avatar is ON or not, but that shouldn't be enforced in the script, otherwise, we can get broken images for example. |
|
I must have missed it, where is that ? Currently the avatar.php page you refer does not exist, I assume this is a target implementation ? I think it would be a good approach.
Are you saying that we should always return a default image ? What happens if client doesn't have access ? Shouldn't we return a 403 ? |
|
I agree that we should use URLs to point to avatars rather than hashes, given that we may have multiple implementations. It's probably better to point the links to the MantisBT instance, for constrained networks. I am not sure we should include the size in the link, various client applications will probably need different sizes. Come to think of it, it might be enough to expose a avatar URL as @vboctor indicated and not necessarily include this in the SOAP API since it can be inferred from the user name. |
|