As designed As Designed? [ATTACH] Seen in profile post "title"

[frm]

Affected version

2.2

Replicated here.

I'm unsure whether [ATTACH] should be shown in the "title" of the message when there's an attachment and a body of just "Smile" (or could be longer, I only noticed this with text after an attachment and have not tried it before one [i.e., Smile and an attachment]), though believe it would get truncated at some point if after as the text would be much longer.

 

[Chris D]

Yep there are some circumstances where we can't render BB code fully. Profile posts don't have titles so we use the content of the profile post to give it a title line in the search results.

This won't come up in many other examples because they have a separate title field which doesn't allow BB code in the first place.

 

[frm]

This won't come up in many other examples because they have a separate title field which doesn't allow BB code in the first place.

Shouldn't out of the box (or even custom BB code) be stripped from the title? Maybe not a bug, but a suggestion at this point.

 

[Paul B]

Shouldn't out of the box (or even custom BB code) be stripped from the title?

That would result in profile posts in the feed with no content, if just an image was inserted.

 

[frm]

That would result in profile posts in the feed with no content, if just an image was inserted.

Not necessarily, as I just attempted it with an attachment only and text must be entered.

 

[Chris D]

BB code is stripped, e.g. if it was something like [B]Bold text[/B] it would render out as Bold text but there's no suitable text fallback for an attachment so we render it out as [ATTACH] and I think if it was a YouTube post or similar it would render out as [MEDIA].

If we didn't do this, if there was no text, e.g. Smile the title and snippet would be totally blank.

I was thinking about still leaving the bug report open, but given the empty content issue that's probably a compelling reason not to make any changes here.

It may not be worth a suggestion either, to be honest. There's not really going to be many solutions that are more acceptable than this.

 

[Chris D]

Not necessarily, as I just attempted it with an attachment only and text must be entered.

View attachment 236287

In that example, you haven't inserted the attachment into the post so there is no content in the message.

 

[frm]

I would suggest phrasing over the BB code, i.e., Attachment, Media Embedded, etc. as it looks a lot better than BB code.

But that's just my 2￠

 

[Chris D]

But then it looks like you've written Attachment Smile which isn't really any better. At least if it's [ATTACH] it looks like it's a textual representation for something else.

 

[frm]

But then it looks like you've written Attachment Smile which isn't really any better. At least if it's [ATTACH] it looks like it's a textual representation for something else.

Well, that would be out of the box. With phrasing, it could be any language an admin would use to accept [ATTACH] to (Attached media) Smile.

At any rate, it's not a bug and pretty trivial. I just don't like the appearance as is and phrasing it could cause a lot more work when we're all looking forward to 2.3.