Attachment_fu Not Resizing

Rails
1

Hello,

Recently attachment_fu stopped resizing images for me. I’m puzzled
because before today it was resizing them and I don’t know what’s
changed. Here’s my code:

class Product < ActiveRecord::Base
has_attachment :content_type => :image,
:storage => :file_system,
:max_size => 18.megabytes,
:resize_to => ‘300x’,
:thumbnails => { :thumb => ‘61x110!’ }
validates_as_attachment
end

I expected a 420x595 image to be resized to 300xWhatever and a 61x110
thumbnail to be created. The image and thumbnail product records
were both created in the database but the images were left at the
original size.

Strangely the width and height fields in the database are no longer
being set. For new uploads they are null whereas previously they had
been set to the measurements of the resized images.

I think I’ve traced the problem to this method (but I could equally
well be barking up the wrong tree):

attachment_fu/processors/rmagick_processor.rb:

       module ClassMethods
       # Yields a block containing an RMagick Image for the given

binary data.
def with_image(file, &block)
begin
binary_data = file.is_a?(Magick::Image) ? file :
Magick::Image.read(file).first unless !Object.const_defined?(:Magick)
puts “binary_data.nil? : #{binary_data.nil?}”
puts “file.nil?: #{file.nil?}”
puts “const_defined? : #{Object.const_defined?(:Magick)}”
rescue
# Log the failure to load the image. This should
match ::Magick::ImageMagickError
# but that would cause acts_as_attachment to require
rmagick.
logger.debug(“Exception working with image: #{$!}”)
binary_data = nil
end
block.call binary_data if block && binary_data
ensure
!binary_data.nil?
end
end

The puts statements give this output:

binary_data.nil? : true
file.nil?: false
const_defined? : false

So it looks like the undefined constant prevents binary_data from
being assigned. But I don’t know what to do about this.

I’d appreciate any help.

Thanks and regards,
Andy S.

2

On Mar 28, 2007, at 12:43 PM, Andrew S. wrote:

So it looks like the undefined constant prevents binary_data from
being assigned. But I don’t know what to do about this.

Just in case it helps you moving on in the development while this is
understood, I found by chance that minimagick (which is enough for
me) works fine.

– fxn

3

On 28 Mar 2007, at 11:54, Xavier N. wrote:

Just in case it helps you moving on in the development while this is
understood, I found by chance that minimagick (which is enough for
me) works fine.

Thanks for the suggestion.

RMagick does still work for me when I call it from straight Ruby –
which is what I am doing manually to resize images until my problem
is fixed. This code looks like:

require ‘rubygems’
require ‘RMagick’

…

img = Magick::Image.read(image_file).first # image_file defined
above in snipped code
img.change_geometry(“300x”) do |cols, rows, img|
img.resize(cols, rows)
end

So I think my RMagick installation is still okay…

Thanks for taking the time to reply (and sorry about my double post
with slightly different titles…user malfunction!).

Regards,
Andy S.

4

Andrew are you devving on win xp? Incase others are finding this problem
thought i would mention that Heggie (of heggie.biz) discovered a
windows race condition bug with this plugin. He got some of it fixed
before we reverted back to acts_as_attachment for artabase.net

The problem seems to be with the plugin looking in the file system for
the file size, which isn’t available immediately due to win xp taking a
few seconds to update it.

R.Cannon

Andrew S. wrote:

Hello,

Recently attachment_fu stopped resizing images for me. I’m puzzled
because before today it was resizing them and I don’t know what’s
changed. Here’s my code:

class Product < ActiveRecord::Base
has_attachment :content_type => :image,
:storage => :file_system,
:max_size => 18.megabytes,
:resize_to => ‘300x’,
:thumbnails => { :thumb => ‘61x110!’ }
validates_as_attachment
end

I expected a 420x595 image to be resized to 300xWhatever and a 61x110
thumbnail to be created. The image and thumbnail product records
were both created in the database but the images were left at the
original size.

Strangely the width and height fields in the database are no longer
being set. For new uploads they are null whereas previously they had
been set to the measurements of the resized images.
…