added support for many filter transformations in one filter set (style), fixes GH-1

[ghost]

Now the following is possible:

liip_imagine:
    styles:
        my_thumb:
            quality: 75
            filters:
                thumbnail: { size: [120, 90], mode: outbound }
                watermark: { watermark: '/path/to/image.png' }
                other_filter: {}

fixes GH-1

[LouTerrailloune]

As you renamed the filters key to styles, I think we should by consistent and also rename the twig filter to apply_style (will fix #9).

[ghost]

As you renamed the filters key to styles, I think we should by consistent and also rename the twig filter to apply_style (will fix #9).

I am not sure. Having similar code base will allow others to easily migrate to LiipImagineBundle. If this should be done, it could also be merged via separate PR to keep this PR manageable.

@lsmith77 what do you think?

[LouTerrailloune]

Switching from avalanche to liip will involve many changes anyway (config
format, interface namespaces)

[lsmith77]

yeah .. i don't think we should break compat for the hell of it .. but things seem to be diverging pretty quick ..

[lsmith77]

btw .. at the latest i will dive into all your discussions and proposals over the weekend .. but was at a conference the past two days and now i have to get a bit of paid work done :)

[lsmith77]

i havent tested this feature yet. i am not quite sold on the term "styles".

[lsmith77]

also i think we should prefix the twig filters with "imagine" as noted by @stof in #9

[LouTerrailloune]

I don't think 'styles' is the better word for this. We should stick to 'filters' or maybe 'filter_sets' to give a hint that many imageine filters will be applied. Of cource we rename the twig filter to 'apply_filter_set'.

[ghost]

Can we agree on something regarding the filter name? Just liip_imagine ? apply_liip_imagine_style ? Other?

Should this be processed in this PR? I think this could be a separate change.

Any other changes are required to merge this?

[lsmith77]

like i said .. i am not yet convinced that it makes sense to use the term style over filter. furthermore .. your PR needs to be synced to all the changes in master before it can be merged.

finally, i haven't tested it out. and ideally i would actually like to start asking for unit tests for all new features. then again i don't want to drop that on you as the first one. if you feel you have the time and skill to create tests, it would be very good.

[ghost]

@lsmith77 PR is updated to match recent changes and style was changed to filter_sets. Let me know if now it can be merged.

Regarding the tests. I can not contribute to tests which currently don't pass. See #22 and #23 first.

[lsmith77]

ooops .. sorry for those .. thx for the PR and i fixed the other issue

[lsmith77]

this change needs to be reverted to the old terminology

[lsmith77]

ok reviewed the PR .. only a few minor issues left.

as for tests ... it would be awesome if you could provide a unit test for the filter manager, but i will merge it even without. but like i said .. its important that we expand the unit tests before we have too many features and end up breaking stuff left and right.

[ghost]

Fixed & squashed into one commit.

[lenar]

Does this watermark filter the example shows actually exist somewhere? ... or is it just an example of future possibilities?

[lsmith77]

future possibilities. if the filter is in imagine .. it should be trivial to add it though