Dynamic Background module doesn't work with Drupal 7.20 ++ [#1933316]

Since I updated to Drupal 7.20, images created with Dynamic Background, are not visible.

There was an mportant change in image generation: drupal-7.20-release-notes:

... any code which programmatically generates a link to an image derivative without using the standard image_style_url() API function will no longer work correctly if the image does not already exist in the file system ...

Quick and dirty workaround: adding "$conf['image_allow_insecure_derivatives'] = TRUE;" in the settings.php

Find it there: http://drupal.org/node/1923936

Comments

Comment #1

cableman0408 CreditAttribution: cableman0408 commented 4 March 2013 at 21:02

Assigned:

Unassigned

» cableman0408

You might be quite right if you are using image styles. I'll look into the issue and get it fixed :-|

Thanks for reporting the problem.

Comment #2

cableman0408 CreditAttribution: cableman0408 commented 7 March 2013 at 19:22

Status:

Active

» Fixed

I have updated the development branch with a fix for the new image styles.

Comment #3

chronowerx CreditAttribution: chronowerx commented 8 March 2013 at 09:57

Version:

7.x-2.x-dev

» 7.x-2.0-rc2

I changed the version of this issue to 2.0-rc2 since only the "official" version seems to be affected, the dev version works. I tried both D7.20 and D7.21, and with the rc2 version in both cases I get the following error:

Notice: Undefined property: stdClass::$url in dynamic_background_create_css() (line 578 of / *** /sites/all/modules/dynamic_background/dynamic_background.module).

If this is a different issue, please let me know!

so long
chronowerx

Comment #4

cableman0408 CreditAttribution: cableman0408 commented 8 March 2013 at 16:04

Yes, sorry for that one :-| a rc3 have been released that fixes that.

Comment #5

22 March 2013 at 16:10

Status:

Fixed

» Closed (fixed)

Automatically closed -- issue fixed for 2 weeks with no activity.

Comment #6

letrotteur CreditAttribution: letrotteur commented 16 May 2013 at 13:48

Any chance of getting this fix for the 1.0 branch? since it is still the recommended release. And seems like a major issue.

Comment #7

cableman0408 CreditAttribution: cableman0408 commented 16 May 2013 at 19:38

Sorry for that. I'll look into it right now.

Personally I see the 2.x branch as the "recommended" release. I just haven found the time to test/fix the upgrade path properly, hence the 1.x is marked as recommended.