achthomas

i have run into this issue again for another site, so i decided to have another look into it again. what i’ve overlooked last time was the HTTP requests that query monitor lists. those http request seem to check api.wordpress.org for updates and add 3-4 secs to a page load, but strangely only for non-admin roles. so i added a little code to a custom plugin which disable those checks for non-admins. they don’t need that, since the admin takes care of housekeeping.

add_filter('pre_http_request', function() {
    if(!current_user_can('update_core')){
		return;
	}
});

fixed the issue for me. if a non-admin logs in, the requests get circumvented by forcing (quick) timeouts.

hope this helps.

• This reply was modified 9 years ago by achthomas.

Hi Volkmar,

thanks for you quick reply! I think you misunderstood, there’s no problem with the metadata, everything works correctly.

Here’s an example. I have registered additional image sizes, onbe of them is 900×450. Then I uploaded an image that’s only 520×347 and wanted to adjust the cropping area. Although the original image is too small, the plugin generates a file with dimensions 900×450. Here’s my wp_get_attachment_metadata() Array:

Array
(
    [width] => 520
    [height] => 347
    [file] => 2016/03/01/myfile.jpg
    [sizes] => Array
        (
            [thumbnail] => Array
                (
                    [file] => myfile-400x267.jpg
                    [width] => 400
                    [height] => 267
                    [mime-type] => image/jpeg
                )

            [feature_large] => Array
                (
                    [file] => myfile-900x450.jpg
                    [width] => 900
                    [height] => 450
                    [crop] => 1
                )

        )

    [image_meta] => Array
        (...)
)

You see: the plugin creates an image which is larger than the original one, does all the metadata updating correctly. But: this puts low-quality images into the system since they’re larger than the uploaded original. You get what I mean?

Maybe my assumption is wrong that nobody would upscale an image beyond its original size (since this results in poor image quality), but I might be wrong.

In my code I can circumvent this, but if this really is a bug (and not a feature;) this might be worth some consideration in a future update. I’d appreciate that!

Thanks
Thomas