[Bf-committers] Node Efficiency Tools - can it go to trunk?
Bartek Skorupa (priv)
bartekskorupa at bartekskorupa.com
Tue Mar 26 17:55:45 CET 2013
Thank you very much.
Bartek Skorupa
www.bartekskorupa.com
On 26 mar 2013, at 17:53, CoDEmanX <codemanx at gmx.de> wrote:
> if the number of properties you pass to an operator differ, e.g. one
> prop per Custom Property of the active object, then you shouldn't do
> something like
>
> prop1 = ...
> prop2 = ...
> ...
> prop20 = ...
>
> to allow for up to 20 properties be passed to the operator. Why? Cause
> you don't need 20 properties if you mostly need to pass just one or two,
> and there may be situations in which you need more than 20. So a fixed
> amount is really bad.
>
> Instead, you can use a CollectionProperty and add an item for every
> element you need to pass.
>
> Here's an example:
>
> http://www.pasteall.org/40829/python
>
>
> If ideasman is fine with your code, then it's ok to move to trunk!
>
>
> Am 25.03.2013 17:33, schrieb Bartek Skorupa (priv):
>> 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
More information about the Bf-committers
mailing list