I do remember proposing this at one point internally:
has_one_attached :avatar do |attachable|
attachable.variant :small, resize: ’100x100>’
…
end
I’m also fine with exposing it as `variant(:small)` or for one offs
`variant(:small, caption: ’foo’)`.
I’m not looking to see this through though, so you’d have to get George
Claghorn or someone else on board for this ride.
Appreciate the extensive write up with reasoning!
> Den 27. nov. 2018 kl. 14.28 skrev Abhishek Chandrasekhar
> <abhishek.chandrasek...@gmail.com>:
>
> Hello all -
>
> Firstly, huge thanks to those who have worked on ActiveStorage so far. The
> library seems to be coming along nicely.
>
>
> ActiveStorage currently allows you to define variants of an attachment as
> follows:
>
> ```ruby
> class User < ActiveRecord::Base
> has_one_attached :avatar
>
> # ...
> end
>
> user.avatar.variant(resize: "100x100>")
> user.avatar.variant(resize: "100x100>", caption: "foo")
> user.avatar.variant(resize: "200x200", rotate: "-90")
> ```
>
>
> I'd like to propose the following functionality that lets users configure and
> pre-define variants.
>
> ```ruby
> class User < ActiveRecord::Base
> has_one_attached(
> :avatar,
> variants: {
> small: { resize: "100x100>" }
> small_captioned: { resize: "100x100>", caption: "foo" }
> medium_rotated: { resize: "200x200", rotate: "-90" }
> }
> )
>
> # ...
> end
>
> user.avatar.variant(:small)
> user.avatar.variant(:small_captioned)
> user.avatar.variant(:medium_rotated)
>
> # Something not pre-definied
> user.avatar.variant(rotate: "120")
> ```
>
> This is similar in concept to how existing attachment libraries (paperclip,
> carrierwave, etc...) have allowed definition and configuration of variants.
>
> It is true that this functionality can be mimicked outside of activestorage
> by having the developer maintain a manual mapping of key names to variant
> configurations. However, I believe this should be part of ActiveStorage
> directly because -
>
>
> 1. It leads to cleaner/more readable code (e.g. `user.avatar.variant(:small)`
> is easy to understand)
> 2. It keeps configuration consolidated inline with `has_one_attached`, which
> is similar to how options are already defined inline with `has_one`,
> `has_many`, etc...
> 3. It's fully backward compatible with how variants are invoked right now and
> doesn't force you to use a particular approach.
>
> Would such a feature be accepted if I were to submit a pull request for it?
>
> Thank you!
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Ruby on Rails: Core" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:rubyonrails-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com>.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core
> <https://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core>.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
> <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>.
--
Kasper
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby
on Rails: Core" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to rubyonrails-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
