4

If a post has no owner for whatever reason, we don't get the owner object in the response.

Thus, it is impossible to display the username of the missing owner. The site is able to do this, so we should be given the name of the user as well.

See meta question #33809 for a view of all of these scenarios.

Here is an example request returning now owner at all:

http://api.meta.stackoverflow.com/1.0/answers/33812

I feel that this is very important, othwerwise we are unable to attribute a post to an author.

Improve this question
5
  • 1
    Hmm, you're right, that's kinda weird.
    – Maxim Zaslavsky
    Commented Jul 11, 2010 at 5:51
  • Kevin, I know you wanted to keep 1.0 as static as possible, but what are the chances of this change going in during the 1.0 phase?
    – jjnguy
    Commented Jul 11, 2010 at 6:04
  • basically 0%. There's no clean place to shove this, as user_id is spec'd as a required value on the returned "user object" and the root problem here is that the user was deleted and thus has no id.
    – Kevin Montrose
    Commented Jul 11, 2010 at 8:29
  • @Kevin, but do you agree that this is a small oversight? (By everyone, this has not been noticed before I don't think)
    – jjnguy
    Commented Jul 11, 2010 at 15:47
  • @Kevin In reading your last comment, I think you mis-understand my request. Instead of returning a User-Object with no id, just return the User Name in the comment, answer, and question object. (No user-object required)
    – jjnguy
    Commented Jul 11, 2010 at 15:49

0

Reset to default

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .