metadata-filter | A module for cleaning up artist, album, and song names
kandi X-RAY | metadata-filter Summary
kandi X-RAY | metadata-filter Summary
A module for cleaning up artist, album, and song names
Support
Quality
Security
License
Reuse
Top functions reviewed by kandi - BETA
Currently covering the most popular Java, JavaScript and Python libraries. See a Sample of metadata-filter
metadata-filter Key Features
metadata-filter Examples and Code Snippets
Community Discussions
Trending Discussions on metadata-filter
QUESTION
There are many PHP solutions and WP plugins, they all come with additional options that I don't want/need, i.e. how the converted files are served, where they are stored, etc.
I need none of all that and am after pure simple code using GD. I don't want to use a plugin, thank you.
When should the encode happen ? At any time you know it is a good point in the hook routine, could be this https://make.wordpress.org/core/2019/11/05/use-of-the-wp_update_attachment_metadata-filter-as-upload-is-complete-hook/ but if you know better or have another solution then use that and possibly let me know why you choose another hook. I would i.e. also be happy with firing a cron job once new images are uploaded if that is better. Also I don't need to have metadata of the converted images in the WP db, fine with having the original
.jpeg
files and their metadata in the Media Library, the.webp
files are just there to be used inside thepicture
element.Where should the converted files be stored?
wp-content/uploads/
default folder structure,.webp
files should be next to.jpeg
files all in there.GD image engine should be used for the conversion. https://developer.wordpress.org/reference/classes/wp_image_editor_gd/ Lately I find imagick just crashes or takes ages to do anything. In WP 5.2 things still worked just fine with imagick but there must have been changes introduced that make using imagick in later versions of WP useless. I find GD to me quite stable and fast, it does not matter it creates lossy WebP versions. The methods for the GD image engine from WP do not seem to include conversion/encoding https://developer.wordpress.org/reference/classes/wp_image_editor_gd/#methods so I am also happy with any methods using in the GD module https://www.php.net/manual/en/book.image.php concerning encoding to WebP.
To get rid of all the extra unneeded image sizes and options WP introduced over time I have these functions/filters in
functions.php
.
ANSWER
Answered 2021-Apr-25 at 09:52To know what data you work with inside a filter or action and to see what variable names hold what values a helper function like below can be used.
QUESTION
I'm using PACT and Java for contract tests and my issue is that I have an api where the items may come up like this:
...ANSWER
Answered 2020-May-13 at 11:00The short answer to your question is that there isn't a way to do exactly what you want.
The longer answer about why that is not available is in the FAQs:
Why is there no support for specifying optional attributes?Firstly, it is assumed that you have control over the provider's data (and consumer's data) when doing the verification tests. If you don't, then maybe Pact is not the best tool for your situation.
Secondly, if Pact supports making an assertion that element $.body.name
may be present in a response, then you write consumer code that can handle an optional $.body.name
, but in fact, the provider gives $.body.firstname
, no test will ever fail to tell you that you've made an incorrect assumption. Remember that a provider may return extra data without failing the contract, but it must provide at minimum the data you expect.
The same goes for specifying "SOME_VALUE or null". If all your provider verification test data returned nulls for this key, you might think that you had validated the "SOME_VALUE", but in fact, you never had. You could get a completely different "SOME_VALUE" for this key in production, which may then cause issues.
The same goes for specifying an array with length 0 or more. If all your provider verification data returned 0 length arrays, all your verification tests would pass without you ever having validated the contents of the array. This is why you can only specify an array with minimum length 1 OR a zero length array.
Remember that unlike a schema, which describes all possible states of a document, Pact is "contract by examples". If you need to assert that multiple variations are possible, then you need to provide an example for each of those variations. Consider if it's really important to you before you do add a Pact test for each and every variation however. Remember that each interaction comes with a "cost" of maintenance and execution time, and you need to consider if it is worth the cost in your particular situation. You may be better off handling the common scenarios in the pact, and then writing your consumer to code to gracefully handle unexpected variations (eg. by ignoring that data and raising an alert).
https://docs.pact.io/faq#why-is-there-no-support-for-specifying-optional-attributes
Community Discussions, Code Snippets contain sources that include Stack Exchange Network
Vulnerabilities
No vulnerabilities reported
Install metadata-filter
Support
Reuse Trending Solutions
Find, review, and download reusable Libraries, Code Snippets, Cloud APIs from over 650 million Knowledge Items
Find more librariesStay Updated
Subscribe to our newsletter for trending solutions and developer bootcamps
Share this Page