Documentation Bug: smugmug.accounts.getType

luke_church

Issue:

Documentation implies 'string return type' API returns a struct:

Comment: I've had to purchase a Smugmug account specifically for this unit-testing, hence for obvious reasons, I'm only testing 'Standard' account featrues :

Can anyone confirm/reject effects for Power and Pro users? (I might be able to test Pro soon)

Documentation http://www.smugmug.com/hack/method-smugmug.accounts.getType

String "AccountType"

• "Pro": Professional accounts
• "Power": Power User accounts
• "Standard": Standard accounts

XML chattering:

[php]
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<methodCall>
<methodName>smugmug.accounts.getType</methodName>
<params>
<param>
<value>
<string>97ac31554ddec6512fe8f334cd917fad</string>
</value>
</param>
</params>
</methodCall>

Header
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<methodResponse>
<params>
<param>
<value>
<struct>
<member>
<name>AccountType</name>
<value>
<string>Standard</string>
</value>
</member>
</struct>
</value>
</param>
</params>
</methodResponse>


[/php]

Workaround: I'm encapsulating the string in a struct.

All the best,

Luke

devbobo

luke_church wrote:

Can anyone confirm/reject effects for Power and Pro users? (I might be able to test Pro soon)

Luke,

I can confirm that the Power user works.

In regard to documentation vs. api, sometimes stuff doesn't work as advertised.

David

luke_church

devbobo wrote:

Luke,

In regard to documentation vs. api, sometimes stuff doesn't work as advertised.

Like most APIs then

Ah, I was considering a difference between the documentation and the API to be a bug. If it isn't, then someone please yell at me, and I won't post anymore. (And the moderator can feel free to take a big axe to the ones I have published)...

Seriously, if this isn't helpful, tell me and I'll stop it.

Luke

Andy

luke_church wrote:

Like most APIs then

Ah, I was considering a difference between the documentation and the API to be a bug. If it isn't, then someone please yell at me, and I won't post anymore. (And the moderator can feel free to take a big axe to the ones I have published)...

Seriously, if this isn't helpful, tell me and I'll stop it.

Luke

i would say keep posting, don will get 'round to looking at them and then let you know if you're on the mark or not.... if i read his other post accurately, this is what he wanted isn't it?

luke_church

andy wrote:

i would say keep posting, don will get 'round to looking at them and then let you know if you're on the mark or not....

Cheers Andy. (though sleep my get in the way soon anyhow:-))

if i read his other post accurately, this is what he wanted isn't it?

That's what I thought, hence why I'm doing it :

All the best,

Luke

luke_church

luke_church wrote:

Issue:

Documentation implies 'string return type' API returns a struct:

Origianlly tested against XML-RPC 1.1.0

Same behaviour confirmed with XML-RPC 1.1.1 BETA