Skip to content
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

fix_3/#90 - support of relative files in UriReader #103

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 14, 2021
Merged

fix_3/#90 - support of relative files in UriReader #103

merged 1 commit into from
Feb 14, 2021

Conversation

monsieurtanuki
Copy link
Contributor

Impacted files:

  • api_addProductImage_test.dart: Files are now relative
  • api_getProduct_test.dart: Files are now relative
  • api_ocrIngredients_test.dart: Files are now relative
  • UriReader.dart: now support relative Files

Impacted files:
* `api_addProductImage_test.dart`: `File`s are now relative
* `api_getProduct_test.dart`: `File`s are now relative
* `api_ocrIngredients_test.dart`: `File`s are now relative
* `UriReader.dart`: now support relative `File`s
@MohamedFBoussaid
Copy link
Member

You have right @monsieurtanuki it is better this way.

Can you also please update example/main.dart ? Thanks

@monsieurtanuki monsieurtanuki merged commit 6c901bb into openfoodfacts:master Feb 14, 2021
@monsieurtanuki
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thank you @MohamedFBoussaid!
Unfortunately I'm not sure if I can change example/lib/main.dart, where we're not exactly dealing with tests that have access to files. And asset files is not supported either by UriReader.
I'll try today.

@monsieurtanuki
Copy link
Contributor Author

@MohamedFBoussaid I've just had a look at the code of main.dart in details: it's full of hard-coded values, probably not usable without minor changes. And the message is explicit enough I think: Uri.parse("Path to you image").
Unless we receive tons of mails of developers complaining that they have no idea what to put there, I think we can skip this final fix. Therefore, I'm finished :)

@MohamedFBoussaid
Copy link
Member

Yeah I guess it is fine to go without it.

Because even the change that I am proposing, will not change anything just to make it clear how to use it.

We can ignore that for the moment.

Thanks @monsieurtanuki

@monsieurtanuki monsieurtanuki deleted the fix_3/#90 branch February 15, 2021 08:41
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants