Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix content type for ImageMapLayer #998

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 22, 2017
Merged

Fix content type for ImageMapLayer #998

merged 1 commit into from
Aug 22, 2017

Conversation

nickpeihl
Copy link
Contributor

The default server response content type per the docs for an imageMapLayer should be image, not json.

The default server response content type per the [docs](http://esri.github.io/esri-leaflet/api-reference/layers/image-map-layer.html#options) for an `imageMapLayer` should be `image`, not `json`.
@nickpeihl
Copy link
Contributor Author

Here's a working example where the default f: 'json' parameter is superceded by f: 'image'.

@jgravois
Copy link
Contributor

thanks for this @nickpeihl!

you have any interest in helping me reopen the can of worms in #952?

@jgravois jgravois merged commit 58f05b3 into Esri:master Aug 22, 2017
@nickpeihl
Copy link
Contributor Author

I should have searched before submitting the PR. I didn't know it was previously discussed. Let me dig in a bit and see where I can help.

@jgravois
Copy link
Contributor

no need to apologize. having 'imageMapLayer' fetching raw images is an improvement in my book and a good first step toward doing the same with 'dynamicMapLayer'.

i seem to remember the other change being error inducing in the test suite, but between the two of us, i'm sure we'll be able to figure it out.

@nickpeihl nickpeihl deleted the imagemaplayer-fix branch August 22, 2017 23:55
jgravois added a commit to jgravois/esri-leaflet that referenced this pull request Apr 23, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants