Closed (won't fix)
Project:
Twitter
Version:
6.x-3.x-dev
Component:
Code
Priority:
Normal
Category:
Bug report
Assigned:
Unassigned
Reporter:
Created:
20 Dec 2008 at 23:58 UTC
Updated:
17 May 2013 at 07:26 UTC
Jump to comment: Most recent, Most recent file
Comments
Comment #1
Shiny commentedComment #2
rogermugs commentedgreat... this solved the problem for me.
Comment #3
webchickOver in #292173: Problems with different case in 'screen_name' (marked as a duplicate since this one has a patch), Eaton says:
So probably change this to use strtolower() on form submit, and create an update hook to lowercase in the database.
Comment #4
webchickMore descriptive title.
Comment #5
Anonymous (not verified) commentedAdded strtolower() to the validation function, but didn't know how to do the update hook...
The bit I added seems to work ok.
Comment #6
Leeteq commentedSubscribing.
Comment #7
Anonymous (not verified) commentedComment #8
Shiny commentedPatch on #7 causes existing accounts to not display. (including the lowercase ones)
Comment #9
Shiny commentedtried testing against CVS branches instead of the tar ball - but errors
on 6--2 the hook_schema doesn't match up with the fields in selects
on 6--3 there's missing functions.
very keen to test and/or fix is someone can point me at where the latest is.
Comment #10
Shiny commentedPatch against twitter-6.x-2.6.tar.gz release
Lower cased the screen_name in 2 places
* Where inserted into {twitter_user}, from user input
* Where data returned by twitter.com is written to {twitter_account}
therefore the join across tables always works.
Comment #11
Shiny commentedfound a 3rd place. -- patch revised to also include where screen_name is written to the {twitter} table.
Comment #12
Shiny commentedwhoops - that diff was reversed. better now.
Comment #13
steinmb commentedTrying to clean up old bugs from the issue q. Reading up on the history of this issue and if I got this right was the start of it that twitter_get_user_accounts() used the screen name to perform a join (have not looked at the 6.x-2-code). This is not the case any more, right?
If my assumption is correct could we perhaps just close this?
Comment #14
steinmb commentedComment #15
dddave commentedThis branch is no longer supported. If this issue is still relevant feel free to reactivate it against relevant version.