New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Unrelated opengraph link attached to a post #8308
Comments
Edit: see next comment below – my case is covered by an earlier Github ticket.
|
This issue is really weird, since there isn't an URL in this post at all. I have no idea how this could happen, id collisions shouldn't happen unless you somehow manually modify the database and create an inconsistency, which then maybe leads to future problems. Do you have anything in the logs? Was the opengraph metadata fetched or was it already in the database? The behavior goob is describing is known and there is already an issue for that: #4966 (diaspora only fetches the info once, and if the opengraph metadata changes and somebody posts the exact same URL again it uses the already fetched metadata) |
This is because of the last sentence: The first link is redirected to boxen1. So this is a reproducible glitch. Don't use the dot without following space. |
Well spotted! It's odd that an OG preview is fetched even though those aren't converted to links in the post itself.
Personally I'd imagine that if text in a post is not something that is converted into a link by diaspora's code, we shouldn't be fetching an OG preview for it. But I'd be interested to hear what other people think. |
Maybe its a good idea to suppress the auto.generation of these links. Just for the notes, in my 180.000 open_graph_links, I don't have ami.es nor us.es or variants in any urls. |
I totally agree with this, this is the bug to fix here. |
I had a super weird (for the users) bug on this post: an opengraph suggestion, totally unrelated, is displayed below it. Do we have an id collusion in the database with another post?
I didn't check the changelog of the new version pushed by #8307 but I don't think it would solve it, would it?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: