Binary Hash is just fine

[bees8]

Hey all! @jan @netroy
As previous topic is closed, I’m opening this one.
Really great to hear that hashing an image should be possible now, unfortunately I still get different results when manually hashing an image.
See bellow workflow:

Hashing the file through SHA256 File Checksum Online gives me a different result:

So,
N8N: f9b13a68bd74c860442a07522970d97dfd135866c4930d7812836e01ab595eb4
vs.
Manually: 5776cd87617eacec3bc00ebcf530d1924026033eda852f706c1a675a98915826

Any thoughts on what is going on here?
Thanks so much!

[Jon]

Hey @bees8,

I have just given it a test and it is working for me, It looks like the issue in your workflow is you are not using Binary Data and are instead generating a hash for a string. Try setting the node to look like this…

This output can then be verified manually from the tool you have found or from a terminal…

There is also no need to tag folk as we get notifications on new posts and I know I find being tagged can often be a distraction from what I am currently working on

[bees8]

Right - apologies, I had no idea tagging is that intrusive.
Thank you for the solution, I was just following the same workflow setup that Jan provided me in the other topic.
… and now I see what is wrong. I’ve pulled the latest version from github, but that’s 231.3 , the binary data option is in 232.0 (pre-release). I’m a complete noob with github, so I guess it is not yet in my version (stable release I presume).
My bad, sorry!
Thanks

[Jon]

Hey @bees8,

I was using 0.233.0 which should be available as the next label although I would have to check the release notes to see when it was added.