** Changed in: thumbnailer (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1467740
Title:
Lots of thumbnail requests with invalid size
To manage notifications
This bug was fixed in the package unity8 - 8.11+15.10.20150915-0ubuntu1
---
unity8 (8.11+15.10.20150915-0ubuntu1) wily; urgency=medium
[ Albert Astals Cid ]
* Fix testNotifications
* Make the wait longer to make tests pass in CI
* New simplified CroppedImageMinimumSourceSize
** Branch linked: lp:ubuntu/wily-proposed/unity8
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1467740
Title:
Lots of thumbnail requests with invalid size
To manage notifications about this bug go
Ok,
https://code.launchpad.net/~aacid/unity8/newCroppedImageMinimumSourceSize/+merge/269233
should solve the problems in the unity8 side
** Branch linked: lp:~aacid/unity8/newCroppedImageMinimumSourceSize
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is
I don't quite understand why you need to know the aspect ratio beforehand.
Surely, there must be some display size into which the thumbnail is expected
to fit?
Ok, let's give you an example.
I know i have to fit my image in something that is 100 width x 100
height and i am using the
Just to chime in, I believe this just shows an issue with the API as it
stands today - it'd be best if we could supply the minimum width/height
and have the other end (thumbnailer in this case) determine what to do.
But I agree with Albert, for now to comply with the API, undefined
sourceSize
To be clear, what I suggested was to use the height and width unchanged
rather than multiplying by 4: that would improve the quality over the
current code while not blowing out the memory requirements of providing
huge images.
As a longer term solution to get images of the required quality, I
https://code.launchpad.net/~aacid/unity8/cropped_image_unknown_aspect_ratio/+merge/269185
implements the suggest workaround by James, it's not terrible, but makes
us use more memory than needed to get an acceptable quality.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
I haven't thought this through fully yet, but I think I agree with
James. It should be possible for us to deliver an image that is x pixels
wide/tall in its smaller dimension, rather than only delivering images
that that are no bigger than x pixels in their larger dimension (which
is what we are
Well, consider the cost of scaling down from a full-size photo to a
thumbnail. It takes a quarter of a second on a Nexus 4.
Yes, that should be done as few times as possible.
Surely, it's not too much to ask the caller what size thumbnail it wants?
It actually is, i have no idea of the image
Correction: the old thumbnailer returned 128x128 for QSize(-1,-1), not
512x512.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1467740
Title:
Lots of thumbnail requests with invalid size
To manage
I think this is actually on the Unity8 side rather than unity-scopes-
shell.
The result cards are generated by CardCreator.js, which uses a
CroppedImageMinimumSourceSize component to display the result art:
http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~unity-
I don't understand why you guys consider an undefined size to be
invalid, the documentation of Qt is quite clear in that it is a valid
size
sourceSize can be cleared to the natural size of the image by setting
sourceSize to undefined.
So yes I want the natural size of the image if i
Well, consider the cost of scaling down from a full-size photo to a
thumbnail. It takes a quarter of a second on a Nexus 4.
Surely, it's not too much to ask the caller what size thumbnail it
wants? If we are not told what size the caller needs, we can either
deliver the full-size image, which is
So, here is some history of this. The old thumbnailer, when presented
with (-1,-1), delivered a 512 thumbnail. That wasn't really by design,
but a side-effect of how the code was written. When we changed to the
new thumbnailer, we decided to return the full-size image for an invalid
QSize.
That
** Changed in: unity-scopes-shell (Ubuntu)
Status: New = Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1467740
Title:
Lots of thumbnail requests with invalid size
To manage
** Changed in: unity-scopes-shell (Ubuntu)
Status: Invalid = New
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1467740
Title:
Lots of thumbnail requests with invalid size
To manage
** Tags added: invalid-qsize
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1467740
Title:
Lots of thumbnail requests with invalid size
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
18 matches
Mail list logo
