smugmug.images.upload method not found

jefjef Registered Users Posts: 42 Big grins
edited May 13, 2005 in SmugMug API Support & Integrations
David Parry asked me to post this as a new thread so it doesn't get missed.

When I switched to the new API this morning, using my API key, the new URLs, and the new method names, I started getting a method not found fault for "smugmug.images.upload". This is a bug.

I attempted to work around this by using the old deprecated method name "upload" with the new URL. With this combination the upload succeeds but the response is an empty string instead of an ImageID. This is a second bug.

Comments

  • onethumbonethumb Administrators Posts: 1,269 Major grins
    edited April 11, 2005
    jef wrote:
    David Parry asked me to post this as a new thread so it doesn't get missed.

    When I switched to the new API this morning, using my API key, the new URLs, and the new method names, I started getting a method not found fault for "smugmug.images.upload". This is a bug.

    I attempted to work around this by using the old deprecated method name "upload" with the new URL. With this combination the upload succeeds but the response is an empty string instead of an ImageID. This is a second bug.

    Found a bug, fixed it. It should be in the next smugmug general release (no promises when that will be, but I expect before the week is out).

    I still wouldn't recommend using XML-RPC to upload, but that's your call. :)

    Don
  • jefjef Registered Users Posts: 42 Big grins
    edited April 11, 2005
    Thanks. For now I'm just using the old API. When your update is ready I'll test the new calls again, and once that is working I'll give upload-via-post another try.
  • jefjef Registered Users Posts: 42 Big grins
    edited May 1, 2005
    I got around to trying the new API for uploading again. What I find is that the first bug - the unknown method name - has been fixed, but the second bug - the empty string response - has not been fixed. Now I can use the correct method name, but I still get an empty string response.

    I have returned once again to uploading with the old API, which remains functional.
  • onethumbonethumb Administrators Posts: 1,269 Major grins
    edited May 1, 2005
    jef wrote:
    I got around to trying the new API for uploading again. What I find is that the first bug - the unknown method name - has been fixed, but the second bug - the empty string response - has not been fixed. Now I can use the correct method name, but I still get an empty string response.

    I have returned once again to uploading with the old API, which remains functional.

    Versions prior to 1.0 (0.9, for example) returned an empty string.

    Are you sure you're sending the version properly with your login call?

    Don
  • jefjef Registered Users Posts: 42 Big grins
    edited May 1, 2005
    onethumb wrote:
    Are you sure you're sending the version properly with your login call?

    Yes.
  • jefjef Registered Users Posts: 42 Big grins
    edited May 13, 2005
    Perhaps I'm the only one not using upload-via-post?

    If anyone else is using the regular smugmug.images.upload method, could you please speak up?
  • onethumbonethumb Administrators Posts: 1,269 Major grins
    edited May 13, 2005
    jef wrote:
    I got around to trying the new API for uploading again. What I find is that the first bug - the unknown method name - has been fixed, but the second bug - the empty string response - has not been fixed. Now I can use the correct method name, but I still get an empty string response.

    I have returned once again to uploading with the old API, which remains functional.

    I'm assuming by this note, btw, that the upload finishes fine, the images show up, but you're just not getting an ImageID back? Or is it something more dire?

    Don
  • jefjef Registered Users Posts: 42 Big grins
    edited May 13, 2005
    onethumb wrote:
    I'm assuming by this note, btw, that the upload finishes fine, the images show up, but you're just not getting an ImageID back?

    That is correct.

    As you suggested, it's as if I was using version 0.9. Except I'm not.
  • onethumbonethumb Administrators Posts: 1,269 Major grins
    edited May 13, 2005
    jef wrote:
    That is correct.

    As you suggested, it's as if I was using version 0.9. Except I'm not.

    I haven't forgotten about this, and I am looking at it, it's just turning out to be a pain to track down. More as I get it.

    I assume you've tried the new BETA endpoint?

    Don
  • jefjef Registered Users Posts: 42 Big grins
    edited May 13, 2005
    onethumb wrote:
    I assume you've tried the new BETA endpoint?

    No, I saw a mention of it but somehow missed the original announcement.
Sign In or Register to comment.