Closed (fixed)
Project:
Facebook-style Statuses (Microblog)
Version:
6.x-1.x-dev
Component:
Code - Functionality
Priority:
Minor
Category:
Feature request
Assigned:
Reporter:
Created:
22 Dec 2008 at 17:15 UTC
Updated:
8 Jan 2009 at 23:50 UTC
Comments
Comment #1
icecreamyou commentedOkay. I'll take care of that. Any opinion on whether users should not be allowed to save an identical status, or whether it should simply appear as if the status was saved even though it wasn't?
Comment #2
soraya_soch commentedYou know, I actually hadn't realised that FB resaves (and updates the timstamp) the status even if the new text is equal to the previous text.
My bad. It's actually handled the same way...
What do you think though? If a user enters the same text as it previously was, should it be considered a new status, or a user error?
Comment #3
icecreamyou commentedUh, that was the question I asked you....
If it's handled as an error, that means no page refresh, but it also means the user will have no idea what they did wrong. If it's handled as a new status, there will be a refresh, but that means that we can display a message explaining what happened.
I think it's always better to let the user know what's going on, so I'm going to code it as a new status. For those more technically minded, that means that this behavior will occur in the submit function rather than the validate function.
Comment #4
icecreamyou commentedFixed locally. Will release a new dev sometime this week.