At first I had trouble with uploading but the dev version fixed that quite nicely!
So I can upload images to the terms now but nothing displays when viewing the term-page .. or a node page with the term attached .. or any view with the taxonomy_image field, views displays nothing at all not even text/link.
The only place I can see the image is when viewing a taxonomy term's edit page.
At first I was using image cache then without it, both give same result.
Is there a special cck field that taxonomy_image requires?
I also tried deleting the cck taxonomy field and using the default taxonomy node form, no luck. Nothing works! lol
Access taxonomy images is enabled for all roles.
I have cleared cache in between changes and dbUpdates.... Still nothing. =(
Anyone else have similar issue?
| Comment | File | Size | Author |
|---|---|---|---|
| #27 | images_not_displaying_in_views_fields-441426-27.patch | 9.98 KB | jenlampton |
| #13 | 441426-taxonomy_image-views-fields.patch | 784 bytes | snufkin |
Comments
Comment #1
Macronomicus commentedcleaning...
Comment #2
Macronomicus commentedcleaning...
Comment #3
Macronomicus commentedI also just noticed that taxonomy_images will not display on views that use fields. So im having to use the teaser or body row style with grid or unformated Style. Is that intentional? I guess its ok I can just theme the output.
Comment #4
j0rd commentedThis is a bug which has come from the most recent update. I've just updated and now my page with views which use taxonomy image's in fields, do not show up.
Something got messed up.
To test, create some taxonomy terms with images. Create a view of "type: term". Set "Row Style: fields", add fields "Taxonomy: Term and Taxonomy: Term image", then see if your Term Images show up below the term names.
For me this broke after updating from 1.15 to 1.16.
Comment #5
Macronomicus commentedYep we've got ourselves a bug. I just verified that this is not present in in the 6.x-1.5 iteration.
Comment #6
j0rd commentedI removed most of the changes which were made in 1.6 back to 1.5 and I got it working again. The code in question here seems a little round about to me and the author tried to simplify it in 1.6, but ended up getting the paths wrong.
I believe the author has minimal views experience, so it should be up to us to provide a solution for him/her.
I'd provide mine, but I just checked the page which I made my fix for and it's broken again :D...so I'll have to look into it again, unless someone else provides a solution.
If you need this to work in the mean time, reverting back to 1.5 should resolve your problem I believe.
Comment #7
Macronomicus commentedVery cool ... I wonder what other fixes were rolled into the 1.6 ... @ least going back to 1.5 is easy enough but sort of messes up my workflow as I use drush from the command line to perform updates (much faster) I'll just have to do each module individually until we get 1.6 removed or fixed.
Thanks for taking a look at it and posting back.
^_^
Comment #8
nancydruYou are right, I am not a Views guru, so your help would be appreciated. It would be nice to have a Views maintainer on the project.
As for what changes were included, check the Release Notes.
Comment #9
aschiwi commentedWhat happens to me is that in a view of one content type only one entry of 10 shows the taxonomy image when I add "distinct: yes" to the view. If I don't add the distinct part, I get all duplicates in the view, one with taxonomy image, one without. In the same view, but another instance (another block) I get taxonomy images for all entries. Unfortunately I'm no good at debugging or reading complicated code like this, so all I can do is report this :(
Comment #10
manoz_79 commentedWas this problem sorted out? I am still unable to display term images in my views which has fields. Help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Manoj
Comment #11
fletch11 commentedI was having trouble configuring this at first but it appears to be working with the latest version after I configured with XX-1.5 and then upgraded to the .dev release. If you are using a tpl.php file to theme your view note that you should call the field using
print $fields['tid']->content;However, if you're looking to call it in a node you still need to use this in a node.tpl.php file:
Comment #12
jziwenchen commentedhi.
i use the 6.x-1.x-dev Taxonomy_Image.
Edit taxonomy_image.module , go to 244 lines [or near this line],
you will find code likes this:
$image[$tid]->url = file_create_url($mylpath . $image[$tid]->path);
modify it to :$image[$tid]->url = file_create_url($fullpath . $image[$tid]->path);
and go to 262 lines (or near this line),
you will find code likes this:
$image[$tid]->url = url($fullpath . $image[$tid]->path);
modify it to $image[$tid]->url = file_create_url($fullpath . $image[$tid]->path);
It's ok in my site.
Hope it can help you !
Comment #13
snufkin commentedI found that there is an issue with the views handler when using fields. Now i am not an expert in views, but dumping the variables in question i found that the patch here fixes it. I made this change so that it should fall back to the old tid lookup, so should not make things worse.
Comment #14
carvalhar commentedHi,
I got the same problem...
i had to do load the node again to load back the tid:
The problem is tid isn't being passed to views_handler_field_taxonomy_image.inc
Comment #15
snufkin commenteddid the patch not work for you?
Comment #16
carvalhar commentednops! neither...
Comment #17
marascos commentedsame issue here.
Comment #18
vosechu commentedCan you tell me whether your images render if you render the view twice in one page? If you add this to your page.tpl.php you can render twice. I'm having an issue where on one of my servers it renders great with fields but on the other when using fields it only renders if the view has already been rendered once before. Caching doesn't even matter.
Naturally, replace with your view->name and view->current_display instead of category_panels and panel_pane_1
Comment #19
vosechu commentedCan you try this patch and find out if it works for you?
http://drupal.org/node/998600
Comment #20
topdillon commentedI applied jackeychan's changes from #12 to dev version. Still no images. If I am not mistaken, this is identical to the patch.
Comment #21
marascos commentedI applied this patch but still have the same issue. I am only displaying the view once on a page.
Comment #22
crasher commentedComment #23
topdillon commentedCould you provide some info? How is this fixed? I don't see a fix anywhere.
Comment #24
topdillon commentedOkay. I got it working.
One oddity. I have a filter for termID with depth. If I use the filter for termID but NOT with depth, the image does not show.
Comment #25
jenlamptonI am using version 6.x-1.6. I have a term view, with row-style set to fields, and the "Taxonomy image" field added. The images do not display.
There are no filter options for "Taxonomy term ID with depth" the only filter available for term id is "Taxonomy term ID".
If I figure this out I'll try to leave some documentation for the next person :)
Comment #26
jenlamptonUpgraded to the -dev version and still no images will display. Re-opening this issue since it's not resolved.
Comment #27
jenlamptonOkay, I found a problem in the module with how the IMG tags were being built. I replaced the custom HTML assembly with a call to theme_image and things started working again. This will probably need some rethinking for imagecache presets to work correctly, but here's my first stab at it.
Comment #28
ericaordinary commentedJust a note on this, I've found the images work when an imagecache preset is applied to your taxonomy image field in views. The image path seems to be built incorrectly for images set as default, as it's looking for the image inside the imagecache directory, except I don't think these default images will have been processed by imagecache. Not a solution, but at least a workaround to get the images to display.
Comment #29
capellicWorks great! Please get the patch in #27 applied to DEV and let's get another proper release done.
Comment #30
Niklas Fiekas commentedThanks @jenlampton!
There are lots of coding style and unrelated(?) changes in the patch, which makes committing it without feedback from @NancyDru a bit scary. Most (if not all) of the coding style changes are good though -- just saying seperate patches would be easier to review.
Other than that I just noticed some trailing whitespace, while skimming it.
Comment #31
nancydruSome things I see in a quick perusal:
As Niklas says, and even though I have been guilty as well, I'd rather see style changes separated into a different patch.
Niklas, Jen knows what she's doing. But your hesitation is commendable.
Comment #32
nehajyoti commented6.x version is outdated. Hence closing the issue!