Fields missing:
platform: stringtags: string[]assetVersion: string ("1", "2" etc)updated_at : some weird Datecreated_at: some weird Date
The weird date is in this format: 12/12/2021 1:23:43 AM, Not sure if it's in 00 or 0 number format.
The current implementation simply uploads an ID, name, description, image, asset, releaseStatus, as well as version, which is an invalid field.
The Unity SDK specifically sends up the current author's ID and name, as well as a thumbnailImageUrl (when it is an upload to android) (or perhaps when uploading a second version?), as well as a totalLikes and totalVisits. I believe these values can all be omitted. I have not documented the thumbnailImageUrl behavior yet. My theory is that their ApiFile models have these fields so they get sent up anyway when serialized, but the API only looks for other fields. Whether or not it is good to mimic SDK behavior when uploading clients is up to the end-user to decide.
Fields missing:
platform: stringtags: string[]assetVersion: string ("1", "2" etc)updated_at: some weird Datecreated_at: some weird DateThe weird date is in this format:
12/12/2021 1:23:43 AM, Not sure if it's in 00 or 0 number format.The current implementation simply uploads an ID, name, description, image, asset, releaseStatus, as well as
version, which is an invalid field.The Unity SDK specifically sends up the current author's ID and name, as well as a thumbnailImageUrl (when it is an upload to
android) (or perhaps when uploading a second version?), as well as atotalLikesandtotalVisits. I believe these values can all be omitted. I have not documented thethumbnailImageUrlbehavior yet. My theory is that their ApiFile models have these fields so they get sent up anyway when serialized, but the API only looks for other fields. Whether or not it is good to mimic SDK behavior when uploading clients is up to the end-user to decide.