Hey everyone,
I hope you had a smooth start of this new year and everything is back to normal business.
It took us a bit longer to finish the first release candidate for 2.5.9 than we promised in the last Kosmos issue (sorry for that), but now it’s here.
It has a couple cool small improvements that we really need you to test. It would mean a lot to us, if you could throw any existing installation at it (on your local machines, please) and let us know if you run into any unexpected issues.
I’m having this bug in Kirby 2-5-9 RC-1 not in Kirby 2-5-8
Whoops\Exception\ErrorException thrown with message “Method ModulesField::__toString() must not throw an exception, caught Error: Class ‘abeautifulsite\SimpleImage’ not found”
Stacktrace:
#0 Whoops\Exception\ErrorException in /Users/macbook/Dropbox/Websites/kirby-master/kirby/vendor/getkirby/toolkit/lib/brick.php:0
Looks like the namespace for the SimpleImage class has changed from abeautifulsite to claviska. So the plugins referencing this library would have to be updated to reflect this change.
In this case, the gd driver of the focus plugin:
$img = new claviska\SimpleImage($thumb->root());
ping @flokosiol
I think the first error message is just a side effect of a module using the focus plugin.
Oh yes, thanks for the ping. I will fix that as soon as possible.
@lukasbestle Should we maybe add a note in the changelog that plugins using the SimpleImage class need to be updated to reflect this change?
@lukasbestle how different is the new version from the old one. Could we run into more issues like that? Otherwise maybe we could just provide a class alias to make it compatible with such plugins.
These are the changes that were necessary in Kirby after the version upgrade. To be honest I haven’t thought about plugins using the SimpleImage class directly.
Quite a lot changed in the new version – and in my opinion the new version is a considerable improvement, but we can’t introduce a breaking change in a patch release. So I’m actually considering to roll back the upgrade. What do you think?
I have updated a website from 2.5.8 to this version 2.5.9 RC-1 (kirby and panel), running with XAMPP 7.0.21 on a Win10 PC local for development (php 7.0.21).
If I delete all thumbs at \thumbs\assets\avatars\ and then go to /panel/users or to the users there, new thumbs are generated. But that files have the size of “0 bytes”.
If I go back to 2.5.8 and delete the old thumbs, everything runs well.
Something runs wrong with “Kirby 2.5.9 RC-1”.
Thanks for testing! I can confirm this issue and will look into it.
I have fixed this on the develop branch of the Core. Could you please test if the change fixes it for you as well? Thanks in advance!
I have changed that lines in the file \kirby\kirby\traits\image.php.
Yes, I can confirm that my problem is fixed. Thank you very much!
Would be good to know, if you want to roll back or not. 
If not, I would need to implement the GD driver changes to the focus plugin as well for Kirby 2.5.9, but keep things for Kirby 2.5.8 and older. This might end in some hacky if-clauses … 
I agree that having to fix this in plugins for compatibility is awkward. 
If @bastianallgeier agrees, we will roll back this upgrade for now and will probably reintroduce it with Kirby 3.
Since we don’t know how many plugins might be affected and we certainly don’t want a bad user experience because of that, that probably makes the most sense unless there is a workaround that guarantees compatibility with plugins.
I’ve just opened the two versions in a diff tool and the diff tool completely fails at highlighting the differences. Meaning: It’s pretty much a complete rewrite. So I don’t think we can have a reliable “adapter class”.
What we could do however is to include both versions and use the new one in Kirby, but still offer the old one for compatibility. As they are in two separate namespaces, that’s actually quite easy to do.
Does the new version fix anything important that can’t wait until Kirby 3? As far as I can see from the changelog, it was only a rather rare issue with some files?
There were some fixes that improved error handling – also the code quality is generally higher. So it’s not absolutely required to upgrade, but I think it’s a good idea in the long term.
Maybe just downgrade SimpleImage to the old version and namespace and keep the rest? Just a thought…
What do you mean with “keep the rest”?