[Bf-committers] Node Efficiency Tools - can it go to trunk?
Bartek Skorupa (priv)
bartekskorupa at bartekskorupa.com
Tue Mar 26 17:10:36 CET 2013
I will ask Campbell for review.
If he reviews and say that it's ok - can I treat this as "You have a permission to move it to trunk"?
Thank you.
Cheers
Bartek Skorupa
www.bartekskorupa.com
On 26 mar 2013, at 17:01, Bastien Montagne <montagne29 at wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> Yes, imho it's good for addons/ dir. Would be cool if you could get
> Campbell (ideasman_42) to review it too in the next days, else just move
> it! :)
>
> Bastien
>
> On 26/03/2013 16:54, Bartek Skorupa (priv) wrote:
>> @ Bastien
>> Changed the code according to your guidelines.
>>
>> Is the script now ok to go to trunk?
>> Thank you for your help.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Bartek Skorupa
>>
>> www.bartekskorupa.com
>>
>> On 25 mar 2013, at 17:33, Bartek Skorupa (priv)<bartekskorupa at bartekskorupa.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hey,
>>> @CoDEmanX:
>>> I don't quite get what you mean by:
>>>> But please don't do this if the amount of props varies (prop1-propN)!
>>> Could you elaborate, please?
>>>
>>>
>>> Bartek Skorupa
>>>
>>> www.bartekskorupa.com
>>>
>>> On 25 mar 2013, at 17:19, CoDEmanX<codemanx at gmx.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Proper formatting:
>>>>
>>>> props = layout.operator(NodesLinkActiveToSelected.bl_idname,
>>>> text="Replace Links")
>>>>
>>>> props.prop1 = True
>>>> props.prop2 = True
>>>> props.prop3 = False
>>>>
>>>> But please don't do this if the amount of props varies (prop1-propN)!
>>>> Use a CollectionProperty instead. I think i did this in the Game
>>>> Property Visulizer addon to replace the evil eval().
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 25.03.2013 16:08, schrieb Bartek Skorupa (priv):
>>>>> Thank you for the explanation.
>>>>>> props = layout.operator(NodesLinkActiveToSelected.bl_idname, text="Replace Links").prop1 = True
>>>>>> props.prop2 = True
>>>>>> props.prop3 = False
>>>>> Oops… I didn't know you can do it :-) Really…
>>>>>
>>>>> Every day I learn something.
>>>>> I will change all those properties accordingly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you once again
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>>
>>>>> Bartek Skorupa
>>>>>
>>>>> www.bartekskorupa.com
>>>>>
>>>>> On 25 mar 2013, at 16:02, Bastien Montagne<montagne29 at wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 25/03/2013 15:51, Bartek Skorupa (priv) wrote:
>>>>>>> Thank you for this quick review.
>>>>>>> Yes you're right about my understanding of bl_label. I did mismatch this and I can change it, np.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> About my 'option' properties:
>>>>>>> In many cases I can change it to enums, but sometimes StringProperty is used because I need to pass more than one property in one go.
>>>>>>> Say I need to set 3 properties:
>>>>>>> prop1 = True
>>>>>>> prop2 = True
>>>>>>> prop3 = False
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wrap it in one StringProperty that gets the value of 'True True False' and then in execute I use string split( ), and eval to get 3 booleans.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please take a look at line 1325 for example:
>>>>>>> layout.operator(NodesLinkActiveToSelected.bl_idname, text="Replace Links").option = 'True True False'
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> option then is passed to execute of NodesLinkActiveToSelected and split.
>>>>>>> see lines: 795 to 798:
>>>>>>> option_split = self.option.split( )
>>>>>>> replace = eval(option_split[0])
>>>>>>> use_node_name = eval(option_split[1])
>>>>>>> use_outputs_names = eval(option_split[2])
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This way I get 3 variables out of one property 'option'
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is there a better way of doing it?
>>>>>> Yes there is! :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In such case, you should do that:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> props = layout.operator(NodesLinkActiveToSelected.bl_idname, text="Replace Links").prop1 = True
>>>>>> props.prop2 = True
>>>>>> props.prop3 = False
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Another question:
>>>>>>> Could you please explain me why using StringProperty instead of proper EnumProperty is wrong?
>>>>>>> Is it a convention, speed issues or anything else?
>>>>>> First of all, it is a convention. True/false options should be booleans,
>>>>>> options with a well defined set of choices should be enums, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This also helps on documentation level (as each enum items has its own
>>>>>> label/description, you do not need comments in code, and doc can be
>>>>>> retrieved easily by multiple ways).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And there is also an UI interest, as using enums you can get a nice
>>>>>> drop-down list as a control, or you can even auto-generate a menu where
>>>>>> each entry will execute the operator with one of the options of the enum, …
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By the way, note that if you have a set of related booleans options that
>>>>>> are not mutually exclusive, you can use an enum with 'ENUM_FLAG' option
>>>>>> (in that case you are just limited to at most 32 different flags - the
>>>>>> length of a classical integer ;) ).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>> Bastien
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you in advance
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bartek Skorupa
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> www.bartekskorupa.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 25 mar 2013, at 15:24, Bastien Montagne<montagne29 at wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Bartek,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just did a (very quick) skim review of your addon, and I agree that
>>>>>>>> there are valuable features in it, worth moving it to trunk. However, I
>>>>>>>> noted at least two points that imho should be addressed before the move:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> First, you seems to mismatch labels and tips of operators! E.g. instead
>>>>>>>> of this line:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> bl_label = "Copy Settings of Active Node to Selected Nodes"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would rather see those:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> bl_label = "Copy Node Settings"
>>>>>>>> bl_description = "Copy the settings of the active node to selected
>>>>>>>> ones"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The second point is, I think, more important. You should replace your
>>>>>>>> “multipurpose” "option" StringProperty by relevant properties. E.g.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> # option: 'from active', 'from node', 'from socket'
>>>>>>>> option = StringProperty()
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Should be replaced by:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> source = EnumProperty(name="Source", description="A relevant
>>>>>>>> description…", default='FROM_ACTIVE',
>>>>>>>> items=(('FROM_ACTIVE', "From Active", "A
>>>>>>>> relevant description…", 'ICON_NONE', 1),
>>>>>>>> ('FROM_NODE', "From Node", "A relevant
>>>>>>>> description…", 'ICON_NONE', 2),
>>>>>>>> ('FROM_SOCKET', "From Socket", "A
>>>>>>>> relevant description…", 'ICON_NONE', 3),
>>>>>>>> )
>>>>>>>> )
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (with relevant changes in other parts of the code).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>> Bastien
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 25/03/2013 14:00, Bartek Skorupa (priv) wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hey,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> After recent commits of node_efficiency_tools.py I as an author call this add-on ready.
>>>>>>>>> All of the features that I had in mind have been included, documented on wiki and in video tutorial.
>>>>>>>>> Recent API changes have taken into account.
>>>>>>>>> It certainly will develop further, but at this stage it's IMHO ready to go trunk.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'd like to ask for reviewing the code and hopefully permission to move this add-on to trunk.
>>>>>>>>> https://svn.blender.org/svnroot/bf-extensions/contrib/py/scripts/addons/node_efficiency_tools.py
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Here's the wiki page:
>>>>>>>>> http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Extensions:2.6/Py/Scripts/Nodes/Nodes_Efficiency_Tools
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tracker:
>>>>>>>>> http://projects.blender.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=468&aid=33543&group_id=153
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thread on blenderartists:
>>>>>>>>> http://blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?274755-ADDON-Nodes-Efficiency-Tools
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Many users appreciate this add-on and wish to have it in official Blender releases.
>>>>>>>>> I declare to maintain the code.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Please let me know if you feel that it's worth including or not.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> With Respect,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bartek Skorupa
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> www.bartekskorupa.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Bf-committers mailing list
>>>>>>>>> Bf-committers at blender.org
>>>>>>>>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Bf-committers mailing list
>>>>>>>> Bf-committers at blender.org
>>>>>>>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Bf-committers mailing list
>>>>>>> Bf-committers at blender.org
>>>>>>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Bf-committers mailing list
>>>>>> Bf-committers at blender.org
>>>>>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Bf-committers mailing list
>>>>> Bf-committers at blender.org
>>>>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Bf-committers mailing list
>>>> Bf-committers at blender.org
>>>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bf-committers mailing list
>>> Bf-committers at blender.org
>>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bf-committers mailing list
>> Bf-committers at blender.org
>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
More information about the Bf-committers
mailing list