Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 8 years ago
Original comment by bear42
on 20 Feb 2011 at 10:14
committed changeset 226:822f202641eb
Original comment by bear42
on 27 Feb 2011 at 5:47
[deleted comment]
After dealing with the same problem, it looks like the patch was applied for
GetUserRetweets, not GetFriendsTimeline. Here's the diff--the patch was applied
to L2650, not L2350.
http://code.google.com/p/python-twitter/source/diff?spec=svn822f202641ebbd762b5a
00e59c0ba72d07233069&r=822f202641ebbd762b5a00e59c0ba72d07233069&format=side&path
=/twitter.py
JM's diff is still accurate, so I won't attach anything. As far as I can tell,
though, it looks like it was applied in a different area of twitter.py.
Original comment by bre...@gmail.com
on 1 Mar 2011 at 5:10
It does look like this has been applied to the wrong lines :(
Original comment by jmsta...@gmail.com
on 8 May 2011 at 8:55
Not sure I follow what your saying. The diff points out that this code:
if max_id:
try:
parameters['max_id'] = long(max_id)
except:
raise TwitterError("max_id must be an integer")
needed to be added to GetUserRetweets and I see that it is present. Doing a
scan of anywhere max_id is used does, however, point out that it's not present
for GetMentions so I've added it with commit 234:263fe2a0db8b
Original comment by bear42
on 8 May 2011 at 9:45
sorry my mistake, please ignore that comment double checked on an old copy of
the file.
Original comment by jmsta...@gmail.com
on 8 May 2011 at 11:19
No problem at all - your comment did make me look twice and I did find one
mistake. Please make more "mistakes" like that again ;)
Original comment by bear42
on 8 May 2011 at 11:20
right now this is a pain I've triple checked everything and indeed it was
missing for GetUserRetweets and the patch has been applied.
I've now looked into the previous comment on Feb 28th stating that it was still
missing and 'max_id' is missing from GetFriendsTimeline so I've generated
another patch for GetFriendsTimeline.
I tested applying the patch to my local copy and it looks correct.
I hope this helps and sorry for the confusion.
Original comment by jmsta...@gmail.com
on 8 May 2011 at 11:34
Attachments:
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
jmsta...@gmail.com
on 31 Jan 2011 at 11:07Attachments: