5 ms·

This is a cool idea, but of course the warning is that if you are turning off certain permissions, there is a good chance the app you are adding is going to bre

by gfodor 15y ago

This is a cool idea, but of course the warning is that if you are turning off certain permissions, there is a good chance the app you are adding is going to break since it's coded expecting certain behaviors from the API based upon those permissions being granted (even if the data is not going to be used.)

rhizome 15y ago
In other words, it's a good test to see if an app is coded incompetently.
- ceol 15y ago
  To be fair, I don't believe Facebook ever allowed users to opt out of certain permissions (barring their recent beta auth[0]). Certainly you'd want to handle missing permissions gracefully, but I can't blame a dev for making their app non-functional when 99.9% of their users will either accept all permissions or deny the app access. [0]: https://developers.facebook.com/docs/beta/authentication/ https://developers.facebook.com/docs/beta/authentication/ (bottom of page)
  - rhizome 15y ago
    As common as a lazy coding practice may be, there's no excuse for programmers not checking inputs, access, or the lack thereof.
- jarin 15y ago
  I guess it would depend on how "production" the app is, but I don't know if I would automatically call not handling that edge case incompetence.
  - rhizome 15y ago
    It's production if the people who are installing it have to worry about permissions.
- gfodor 15y ago
  Incompetent is a pretty strong word. If you are asking for permissions X, Y, and Z, and the contract with Facebook's API is you either get all three or you get zero, I fail to see why a programmer should spend any non-trivial amount of time coding defensively if that contract were broken. (All other things being equal, there are bigger fish to fry.)
chalst 15y ago
I often grant these applications all the permissions they want and then revoke them from within Facebook. Some complain or fall over, most don't. My guess is that chadselph's technique rarely gives worse results and is a damn sight more convenient to use.

by gfodor 15y ago

rhizome 15y ago

In other words, it's a good test to see if an app is coded incompetently.

ceol 15y ago
To be fair, I don't believe Facebook ever allowed users to opt out of certain permissions (barring their recent beta auth[0]). Certainly you'd want to handle missing permissions gracefully, but I can't blame a dev for making their app non-functional when 99.9% of their users will either accept all permissions or deny the app access. [0]: https://developers.facebook.com/docs/beta/authentication/ https://developers.facebook.com/docs/beta/authentication/ (bottom of page)
- rhizome 15y ago
  As common as a lazy coding practice may be, there's no excuse for programmers not checking inputs, access, or the lack thereof.
jarin 15y ago
I guess it would depend on how "production" the app is, but I don't know if I would automatically call not handling that edge case incompetence.
- rhizome 15y ago
  It's production if the people who are installing it have to worry about permissions.
gfodor 15y ago
Incompetent is a pretty strong word. If you are asking for permissions X, Y, and Z, and the contract with Facebook's API is you either get all three or you get zero, I fail to see why a programmer should spend any non-trivial amount of time coding defensively if that contract were broken. (All other things being equal, there are bigger fish to fry.)

chalst 15y ago

I often grant these applications all the permissions they want and then revoke them from within Facebook. Some complain or fall over, most don't. My guess is that chadselph's technique rarely gives worse results and is a damn sight more convenient to use.