User tests: Successful: Unsuccessful:
Introduces image compression to the image resizer plugin.
Why?
Resizing might result in a size increase, so we leave an option to compress.
No compression option. Image size may go up after the resize process.
Compression option.
Please select:
Documentation link for docs.joomla.org:
No documentation changes for docs.joomla.org needed
Pull Request link for manual.joomla.org:
No documentation changes for manual.joomla.org needed
Category | ⇒ | Administration Language & Strings Front End Plugins |
Status | New | ⇒ | Pending |
Category | Administration Language & Strings Front End Plugins | ⇒ | Unit Tests Repository Administration com_admin SQL |
Labels |
Added:
Language Change
PR-4.3-dev
|
Category | Administration Unit Tests Repository com_admin SQL | ⇒ | Administration Language & Strings Front End Plugins |
Labels |
Added:
?
Removed: Language Change |
Labels |
Added:
Language Change
PR-5.0-dev
Removed: ? |
I suspect a mistake between compression <-> quality. Usually, when processing jpeg images, the 'quality' is set in the range from 0 to 100, not the compression: Lower values are poor quality. Higher values are better quality. To be consistent we should use 'quality'.
Honestly I'd prefer quality
too, just that the initial discussion I had regarding this feature we talked about compression
.
I have tested this item ? unsuccessfully on 38458ad
Several problems with the patch applied:
I see string keys rather than strings as the last Task Parameter
PLG_TASK_CHECK_FILES_LABEL_COMPRESSION *
PLG_TASK_CHECK_FILES_LABEL_COMPRESSION_DESC
I think the default value should be something reasonable, perhaps 75 rather than 0
The task does not actually run - Run Test just gives a Task: "Resize images" popup that never completes. If I close it I see a Running since ... Icon.
This pull request has been automatically rebased to 5.1-dev.
This pull request has been automatically rebased to 5.2-dev.
Title |
|
I have tested this item ✅ successfully on 38458ad
I have tested this with an image of 5.3MB and 6000px width. Compressed to a width of 1200px and 80% quality it resulted in a file size of 669kB
I have tested this item ✅ successfully on 38458ad
I have tested this with an image of 5.3MB and 6000px width. Compressed to a width of 1200px and 80% quality it resulted in a file size of 669kB
I have tested this item ✅ successfully on 38458ad
I have tested this item ? unsuccessfully on 38458ad
This pull request has been automatically rebased to 5.3-dev.
Title |
|
I suspect a mistake between compression <-> quality.
Usually, when processing jpeg images, the 'quality' is set in the range from 0 to 100, not the compression: Lower values are poor quality. Higher values are better quality.
To be consistent we should use 'quality'.