I suspect the viewer doesn't need the target of linked items inside linked folders to go in the reply of the original request. At least my tests indicate that. Pushing this out, so that others who use linked folders a lot more can verify.

fsassets
Diva Canto 2015-06-02 16:31:56 -07:00
parent 0531448664
commit 3141664d6b
1 changed files with 14 additions and 14 deletions

View File

@ -725,20 +725,20 @@ namespace OpenSim.Capabilities.Handlers
itemsToReturn.InsertRange(0, links); itemsToReturn.InsertRange(0, links);
foreach (InventoryItemBase link in linkedFolderContents.Items) //foreach (InventoryItemBase link in linkedFolderContents.Items)
{ //{
// Take care of genuinely broken links where the target doesn't exist // // Take care of genuinely broken links where the target doesn't exist
// HACK: Also, don't follow up links that just point to other links. In theory this is legitimate, // // HACK: Also, don't follow up links that just point to other links. In theory this is legitimate,
// but no viewer has been observed to set these up and this is the lazy way of avoiding cycles // // but no viewer has been observed to set these up and this is the lazy way of avoiding cycles
// rather than having to keep track of every folder requested in the recursion. // // rather than having to keep track of every folder requested in the recursion.
if (link != null) // if (link != null && link.AssetType == (int)AssetType.Link)
{ // {
//m_log.DebugFormat( // //m_log.DebugFormat(
// "[WEB FETCH INV DESC HANDLER]: Adding item {0} {1} from folder {2} linked from {3} ({4} {5})", // // "[WEB FETCH INV DESC HANDLER]: Adding item {0} {1} from folder {2} linked from {3} ({4} {5})",
// link.Name, (AssetType)link.AssetType, linkedFolderContents.FolderID, contents.FolderID, link.ID, link.AssetID); // // link.Name, (AssetType)link.AssetType, linkedFolderContents.FolderID, contents.FolderID, link.ID, link.AssetID);
itemIDs.Add(link.ID); // itemIDs.Add(link.AssetID);
} // }
} //}
} }
} }