CaSe SeNSiTive bug on Gmail Video beta |
Loading ...I was having trouble getting my video uploaded to the new Google Video beta service. Lo and behold I discovered the problem had to do with case sensitivity!
Eventually the idea is that those who submit their own original videos and are approved will show up on the Google Video service (pictured below):
Description of problem
When I used ‘tdavid’ at gmail.com the Google Video Upload client was accepting that and my password just fine and sending off my files to a locaton that was not syncronized with my Google account which is actually at TDavid at gmail.com. Note the first two letters in my name are capitalized.
I have notified Google of this issue already, but in the meantime anybody else that is uploading videos and not seeing them in the Google Video area, make sure your login information between Google Video Upload client and your online Google account matches CaSE seNsitiveLy. Unix (which Google Video is using on the backend) is case sensitive, Windows doesn’t seem to care. If these two don’t match up, however, your uploaded videos will appear to work just fine on the uploader end, but never show up in the Google video account area.
Case SenSitivITy alert!
It’s got nothing to do with Windows / Unix. Both are just as case sensitive / insensitive. It’s just shoddy programming, and is easy enough to clean up
Comment by Jeremy C. Wright — April 20, 2005 @ 4:36 pm PST
Incorrect, Jeremy. /Videos/ and /videos/ in Unix are not one in the same, but try that in Windows (via Windows Explorer) — they are the same — and if you try to do that then you’ll get an error message telling you that you already have a folder named that, even though the caSe is dIfFerent.
Comment by TDavid — April 20, 2005 @ 4:52 pm PST
Try typing in your Windows password in all caps. Good luck getting in
Filesystem level case sensitivity (as in your Unix) example is different than database-level case sensitivity (as in your GMail user id). Shoddy programming is the only reason to have something like this happen. It has nothing to do with filesystem case sensitivity (which Windows can do as well, btw).
Comment by Jeremy C. Wright — April 20, 2005 @ 5:01 pm PST
MySQL is case insensitive also:
SELECT name FROM videos WHERE name=’tdavid’
is the same as
SELECT name FROM videos WHERE name=’TDavid’
Personally I prefer things to be case sensitive enforced, it makes it a little bit easier not to make mistakes, but then you still have the issue of ending up with multiple users to contend with like: Jeremy, jeremy, JEREMY, JEremy, JereMY, etc. A string to lower function for all names can help in a scenario here.
Thanks for stopping by
Comment by TDavid — April 20, 2005 @ 5:04 pm PST
Wow, you responded before I responded. We’re talking apples and oranges here. Remember, I do programming for a living, Jeremy
The issue described in this article IS a file level case sensitivity issue. Where do you think the videos are being uploaded from the Google Video uploading program? To a Unix-based filesystem.
That’s why the username match isn’t there. I thought this was clear, mon … apparently not.
Comment by TDavid — April 20, 2005 @ 5:07 pm PST
I used to do programming as well. I don’t actually believe this is a filesystem issue, unless Google’s not using any abstraction at all (which’d be stupid). The videos should be being stored directly into databases. It’s faster than filesystem access and much more manageable.
So, where do I think they’re being uploaded to? Directly into a database. Anything else’d be rather foolish (IMHO). But, then, I haven’t looked at Google Video’s architecture yet.
Comment by Jeremy C. Wright — April 20, 2005 @ 5:27 pm PST
Oh, and don’t worry, I know that most databases aren’t generally case sensitive (they are, but not the way you’re talking about). Which is why I said the only excuse’d be shoddy programming. Don’t worry though, you can force MySQL to behave in just the way you fear
Comment by Jeremy C. Wright — April 20, 2005 @ 5:30 pm PST
Hmm, storing large binary files in a relational database … “faster” ? Ok, I’ll just leave that one alone. Might want to take a peek at something like this though: http://rhea.redhat.com/bboard-archive/acs_applications/000avF.html
I do agree with your initial comment that this is a case of shoddy programming and I think I’ll just leave it at that.
However, I am curious why you say “used to” (in my case there is no past tense, it is very present tense) — did you retire or something? LOL You are a young guy, the money is a lot better in programming than writing/blogging.
Comment by TDavid — April 20, 2005 @ 6:04 pm PST
“Used to” because I don’t like “doing work”. I’d rather be meeting people, strategizing, planning, etc. Development and graphic design (both past careers) felt too much like grunt work, which is why I moved out of them.
Comment by Jeremy C. Wright — April 20, 2005 @ 6:45 pm PST