#24466 closed defect (bug) (invalid)
Custom image sizes display/insert with incorrect dimensions in media modal
Reported by: | ericlewis | Owned by: | |
---|---|---|---|
Milestone: | Priority: | normal | |
Severity: | normal | Version: | 3.6 |
Component: | Media | Keywords: | |
Focuses: | Cc: |
Description
Something seems wonky in the backbone interface for media modals with a custom image size defined with hard cropping mode.
Drop this boilerplate in a plugin or theme. I dropped it into functions.php of Twenty Thirteen.
add_action( 'after_setup_theme', 'add_a_custom_image_size' ); function add_a_custom_image_size() { add_image_size( 'fat-and-short', 900, 300, true ); } add_filter( 'image_size_names_choose', 'add_a_custom_image_size_to_media_modal', 10, 1 ); function add_a_custom_image_size_to_media_modal( $sizes ) { $sizes['fat-and-short'] = 'Fat and Short'; return $sizes; }
Then upload an image larger than these constraints in an Edit Post media modal. In the dropdown for attachment size, I see "Fat and Short - 604 x 201" - not the size defined. Even more bizarre, when the img element is inserted, it refers to the right file for the size (...-900x300.jpg), but the attributes on the image are set to the wonky dimensions.
Change History (4)
#2
follow-up:
↓ 4
@
11 years ago
- Resolution set to invalid
- Status changed from new to closed
After investigating a bit, I was testing with Twenty Thirteen here, which sets $content_width to 604, so this is actually expected behavior, not a bug. Marking invalid.
#4
in reply to:
↑ 2
@
9 years ago
Replying to ericlewis:
After investigating a bit, I was testing with Twenty Thirteen here, which sets $content_width to 604, so this is actually expected behavior, not a bug. Marking invalid.
Hey could you elaborate on this? How does $content_width affect the image dimensions?
Related: #23779, #22738.