[Bug] 'Copy link to post' copies the external link instead of the internal link #166

Open
opened 2022-09-14 06:39:23 +00:00 by Naln1 · 8 comments

A video of the issue is attached

A video of the issue is attached
3.4 MiB
Contributor

This is an intentional change to copy the link meant to be shared, you can still access the internal link by right clicking the timestamp

This is an intentional change to copy the link meant to be shared, you can still access the internal link by right clicking the timestamp
Author

Then why not just remove the button entirely? To return the same logic: You can still access the external link by clicking or right-clicking 'External source'.

I have muscle memory built up after 6mo of using that feature, that I now need to re-learn because of this asinine change.

Then why not just remove the button entirely? To return the same logic: You can still access the external link by clicking or right-clicking 'External source'. I have muscle memory built up after 6mo of using that feature, that I now need to re-learn because of this asinine change.
Contributor

I mean it wouldn't be hard to make optional, but to me it made no sense to share an internal link to an external post when youd just share the external post. What's your use case for that? Without being pointlessly insulting, if you could.

I mean it wouldn't be hard to make optional, but to me it made no sense to share an internal link to an external post when youd just share the external post. What's your use case for that? Without being pointlessly insulting, if you could.
Author

I have multiple accounts on my instance, and - seeing as there's no multi-user suport - I use container tabs for each of those accounts. Sometimes I see a post on account A that I want to interact with from account B, so I'll copy the link or RightClick -> Open in contianer tab to access it from the other account.

Additionally, my partner is also on my instance, so if I'm sending them a Fedi post via a chat app or smth, it makes more sense to just give them a link from my instance than it does to give them a link from the original instance so they don't have to go through the remote-interaction process (especially considering Misskey doesn't support the remote-interaction process).

I have multiple accounts on my instance, and - seeing as there's no multi-user suport - I use container tabs for each of those accounts. Sometimes I see a post on account A that I want to interact with from account B, so I'll copy the link or `RightClick -> Open in contianer tab` to access it from the other account. Additionally, my partner is also on my instance, so if I'm sending them a Fedi post via a chat app or smth, it makes more sense to just give them a link from my instance than it does to give them a link from the original instance so they don't have to go through the remote-interaction process (especially considering Misskey doesn't support the remote-interaction process).
Contributor

It still seems like even in your situation it'd be the same amount of time and travel to use the internal link that's attached to the time stamp already, no? Even if it would be a new muscle memory, as more people use the copy link function to share the post, not as a hack between multiple same instance sessions.

Maybe FG can offer her thoughts.

It still seems like even in your situation it'd be the same amount of time and travel to use the internal link that's attached to the time stamp already, no? Even if it would be a new muscle memory, as more people use the copy link function to share the post, not as a hack between multiple same instance sessions. Maybe FG can offer her thoughts.

"asinine" is a bit strong

but now that you mention it, it does indeed mean that whichever way we do it, we'll have two links to the same place, which we shouldn't ideally

i think this needs a little more thought semantically - since timestamp links aren't exactly intuitive and i know people that didn't even know it had a link for the longest time

maybe we should have "copy link to post" which does internal links, and "copy link to source" which does external?

"asinine" is a bit strong but now that you mention it, it does indeed mean that whichever way we do it, we'll have two links to the same place, which we shouldn't ideally i think this needs a little more thought semantically - since timestamp links aren't exactly intuitive and i know people that didn't even know it _had_ a link for the longest time maybe we should have "copy link to post" which does internal links, and "copy link to source" which does external?

(that is, rather than opening in a new tab, which may be unexpected)

(that is, rather than opening in a new tab, which may be unexpected)
Author

Indeed, I think we need to either have both 'Follow internal URI' and 'Follow external URI' OR both 'Copy internal URI' and 'Copy external URI' (not neccessarily worded that way).

Indeed, I think we need to either have both 'Follow internal URI' and 'Follow external URI' OR both 'Copy internal URI' and 'Copy external URI' (not neccessarily worded that way).
Sign in to join this conversation.
No milestone
No project
No assignees
3 participants
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: AkkomaGang/akkoma-fe#166
No description provided.