Comments for thoughtbot's paperclip  

thanks for this update

Pull request sent w/ fix

Adding of convert_options has broken paperclip unless :convert_options => {} is added to the has_attached_file options. Fix by adding || {} to the end of line 37 in lib/paperclip/attachment.rb

Oh, geez, I must be tired. Thanks for the heads up.

If I could delete those I would, but github fails my textile test.

Aie, an old version of textile.
<pre><code>
diff -git a/tasks/paperclip_tasks.rake b/tasks/paperclip_tasks.rake
index 580d775..fcb9088 100644
—a/tasks/paperclip_tasks.rake
++ b/tasks/paperclip_tasks.rake
@ -49,7 +49,7 @ namespace :paperclip do
task :metadata => :environment do
for_all_attachments do |instance, name|
if file = instance.send(name).to_file
- instance.send("#{name}_file_name=", instance.send("#{name}_file_name").strip
instance.send("#{name}_file_name=", instance.send("#{name}_file_name").strip)
instance.send("#{name}_content_type=", file.content_type.strip)
instance.send("#{name}_file_size=", file.size) if instance.respond_to?("#{name}_file_size")
instance.save(false)
</code></pre>

I think you forgot a parenthesis here.
bc.. diff -git a/tasks/paperclip_tasks.rake b/tasks/paperclip_tasks.rake
index 580d775..fcb9088 100644
—a/tasks/paperclip_tasks.rake
++ b/tasks/paperclip_tasks.rake
@ -49,7 +49,7 @ namespace :paperclip do
task :metadata => :environment do
for_all_attachments do |instance, name|
if file = instance.send(name).to_file
- instance.send("#{name}_file_name=", instance.send("#{name}_file_name").strip
instance.send("#{name}_file_name=", instance.send("#{name}_file_name").strip)
instance.send("#{name}_content_type=", file.content_type.strip)
instance.send("#{name}_file_size=", file.size) if instance.respond_to?("#{name}_file_size")
instance.save(false)

It wasn’t so much infeasible as it was not terribly useful. Cool, but not useful from the standpoint of assigning directly from the hash like just another attribute.

Is there a reason that assign-by-URI support was removed? Was it infeasible, or just an issue with the implementation?