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

client_id is in fact Client Mail #13

Open
drazik opened this issue Dec 1, 2014 · 6 comments
Open

client_id is in fact Client Mail #13

drazik opened this issue Dec 1, 2014 · 6 comments
Assignees

Comments

@drazik
Copy link

drazik commented Dec 1, 2014

Hello,

I installed this repo yesterday (using the Symfony2 bundle) and I don't know if Google changed something or what but what you call "client_id" ([email protected]) is actually called "Client Mail" by Google. Client ID is nearly the same but not really.

@tmartin tmartin self-assigned this Dec 2, 2014
@tmartin
Copy link
Member

tmartin commented Dec 2, 2014

Hi,

I think it's the same concept. The name of this field has usually been misleading in the past. I'll check to see if everything is all right.

Although, is the code working properly?

@drazik
Copy link
Author

drazik commented Dec 4, 2014

Google analytics give a client id and a client mail. What they call client mail is what you call client id. Their client id is something else (I didn't need it to use the bundle, but when I tried to put it in client_id, it didn't work).

The code is working as expected, thanks for the good work :)

@egeloen
Copy link
Contributor

egeloen commented Dec 4, 2014

Yeah, we are aware of this but the problem is google analytics uses client_id property for the client_mail. This is definitively not intuitive at all but this is how it works... Changing it to client_mail would confuse even more IMO.

@drazik
Copy link
Author

drazik commented Dec 6, 2014

Yep I think you're right. But since you explain that "client id" is something like [email protected] it is a littlle more intuitive. If you are aware of that, it's not a problem anymore ;)

@egeloen
Copy link
Contributor

egeloen commented Dec 7, 2014

Maybe we should just refine the doc? What do you think @tmartin?

@nivv
Copy link

nivv commented Mar 22, 2015

👍

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

No branches or pull requests

4 participants