-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 37
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Create & Publish: Attribute definitions per instance #860
Closed
iLLiCiTiT
wants to merge
18
commits into
develop
from
enhancement/AY-5552_Publisher-attr-defs-per-instance
Closed
Changes from 16 commits
Commits
Show all changes
18 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
d1bae6d
don't store 'attr_plugins'
iLLiCiTiT a1ca6a2
Merge branch 'develop' into enhancement/AY-2420_Callbacks-and-groups-…
iLLiCiTiT c337f2c
added 2 new methods to be able to receive attribute definitions per i…
iLLiCiTiT 738cc82
added helper methods to create plugin
iLLiCiTiT cb3df92
attribute definitions are defined per instance
iLLiCiTiT e457580
Merge branch 'develop' into enhancement/AY-5552_Publisher-attr-defs-p…
iLLiCiTiT 35d7277
removed unused imports
iLLiCiTiT d970a1c
remove line
iLLiCiTiT f526245
Merge branch 'develop' into enhancement/AY-5552_Publisher-attr-defs-p…
BigRoy f03983d
use 'get_attr_defs_for_instance' after creation
iLLiCiTiT bbd3881
implemented 'update_create_attr_defs'
iLLiCiTiT b3f39ba
data to store does not have to have 'AttributeValues'
iLLiCiTiT 0770a26
Merge branch 'develop' into enhancement/AY-5552_Publisher-attr-defs-p…
iLLiCiTiT cf41ab6
Merge branch 'develop' into enhancement/AY-5552_Publisher-attr-defs-p…
iLLiCiTiT ee4ecf1
Merge branch 'develop' into enhancement/AY-5552_Publisher-attr-defs-p…
iLLiCiTiT 688c253
modified signature of '_create_instance'
iLLiCiTiT dbb427f
Merge branch 'develop' into enhancement/AY-5552_Publisher-attr-defs-p…
iLLiCiTiT 7427a07
Merge branch 'develop' into enhancement/AY-5552_Publisher-attr-defs-p…
iLLiCiTiT File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So - how dynamic is this? Like, from the
CreatedInstance
to what data in it are we allowed to respond to make the returned attribute definitions unique? E.g. technically we can now differentiate attribute defs based on "other attributes" on the instance - however I wonder whether that's intended 'feature'?families
on the instance if it has it?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, but if I may request, please do not use
families
for it if possible. We can discuss each individual use-case (not here).Why: In case of USD, you probably should be adding
families
based on the definitions, instead of showing definitions based on families? Meaning, you can add"isUsdInstance": True
on instance data to know if is related to USD or not (please take this as very very basic example).Both question have same answer. Right now it collects definitions only when instance is created or collected (on create and on reset). For "real time update" we need callbacks. Future PR mentioned in description, which I think might require change of the methods or create context api.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I see, but preferably we work towards something similar to
families
(like standardizes like that, alsmost like "tags") but for the instance's features instead instead of resulting in TONS and TONS ofisUsdInstance=True
andisFbxInstance=True
. Stepping away frompyblish
terminology likefamilies
, yes! But just doing for exampletargetProductTypes = {"fbx", "usd"}
or whatever name we come up seems like something we can standardize way better. Or maybe better yet, have a dedicated attribute for that on the instance. E.g. being able to do something like:Likely overlaps tons with @antirotor work with OpenAssetIO but that's a can of worms I'm afraid to touch. :)
👍
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Because I don't know the context, I can't react. Only from what you wrote I have 10 following questions that will raise another questions. Maybe with full context I would agree, but at this moment I don't.
It is possible to do anything, we should just discuss what would be the ideal approach, to make it clear from data flow.
Like I've said (wrote) we can discuss that out of this PR, as it is not directly related, and it requires more minds.