ruby - Carrierwave - Error when processing images -

-

the problem following error thrown on mongoids save! action.

mongoid::errors::validations: validation failed - img failed processed. ~/.rvm/gems/ruby-1.8.7-p249/gems/mongoid-2.0.0.rc.7/lib/mongoid/persistence.rb:234:in `fail_validate!' ~/.rvm/gems/ruby-1.8.7-p249/gems/mongoid-2.0.0.rc.7/lib/mongoid/persistence.rb:75:in `save!' ./app.rb:29:in `post /upload'

the setup following:

require "sinatra"     # 1.1.2 require "mongoid"     # 2.0.0.beta.19 require "rmagick"     # 2.12.2 require "carrierwave" # 0.5.1 require "carrierwave/orm/mongoid" require 'carrierwave/processing/rmagick' ....   mongoid.database = mongo::connection.new('somehost', 1234).db('test')  class uploader < carrierwave::uploader::base   include carrierwave::rmagick   storage :file    def store_dir     "uploads"   end   process :resize_to_fit => [80, 80] end   class image   include mongoid::document    mount_uploader :img, uploader end   ....  post '/upload'   @img = image.new   @img.img = params[:file]   @img.save!   redirect '/' end

the glitch somewhere in processing:

process :resize_to_fit => [80, 80]

if remove line. works expected.

ok. didn't follow traces deep enough: problem missing jpeg-delegate in imagemagick. naturally processing of jpeg-files failed.

the solution reinstall imagemagick source.

still it's quite opaque when mongoid throws error called carrierwave because gets error rmagick triggered imagemagick.

still. in retrospective it's quite obvious :-)


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Javascript line number mapping -

-
magically formatted comments change reported line number of javascript errors in browsers; this: //@line n "f" n line number , f file name. unfortunately, //@line appears ungoogleable. know there documentation on feature, , browsers support it? (i found references here , here .) from can find available in mozilla based browsers. it using js_setoptions command can turn these options on or off depending on values passed. https://developer.mozilla.org/en/js_setoptions
Read more

c# - Is it possible to remove an existing registration from Autofac container builder? -

-
something along lines: builder.registertype<mytype>().as<itype>(); builder.registertype<mytype2>().as<itype>(); builder.deregistertype<mytype>().as<itype>() var container = builder.build(); var types = container.resolve<ienumerable<itype>>(); assert.istrue(types.count == 1); assert.istrue(types[0].gettype == typeof(mytype2)); scenario: go through bunch of assemblies , go register types want make sure have 1 implementation of given type. need before create container. track on own nice if autofac me bit. this cannot done directly using containerbuilder , unless start on new one. mind you, having first built container should able construct new container filtering away unwanted types , reusing registrations first container. this: ... var container = builder.build(); builder = new containerbuilder(); var components = container.componentregistry.registrations .where(cr => cr.activator.limittype != typ...
Read more

php - Mysql PK and FK char(36) vs int(10) -

-
i have read mysql can handle indexes , searches better if tables keys integers rather char(36) uuid's. is worth converting int(10)? note: use 1 server , have have plans use multiple databases concurrently therefore removing 1 of big reasons using uuid. our tables innodb if makes difference. thanks in advance. usually rdbms can handle integer keys pk more efficient, other datatypes. reason how build index column, yes: long dont require string (or other typed) keys, should use integers. however: char(36) , int(10) far away being equal, because int(10) much smaller, char(36). dont know, if require many different keys, should keep in mind. update, complete last paragraph: int(10) 32-bit, char(36) 36 - ^byte^ (= 288-bit). not mean, int consumes less space, means, char(36) has 4 times more different keys.
Read more