Geometry Node: Multi-input socket tooltip #104468

Open
Iliya Katushenock wants to merge 29 commits from mod_moder/blender:multi_input_tooltip into main

When changing the target branch, be careful to rebase the branch in your fork to match. See documentation.

Tooltip for multi-input socket. This kind of inspection can help to see what data are passed into node.
Any invalid, muted or dangling link will not be taken into account. This feature reuse already exist tooltip
formatting and just add column indentation in multi-line case.

image image image
Buttons Interface
Tooltip for multi-input socket. This kind of inspection can help to see what data are passed into node. Any invalid, muted or dangling link will not be taken into account. This feature reuse already exist tooltip formatting and just add column indentation in multi-line case. | | | | | -- | -- | -- | | ![image](/attachments/848939c7-96a0-4370-9480-0013b8bacaa1) | ![image](/attachments/3d966d8d-0662-4a52-a056-12b0e1ab09e3) | ![image](/attachments/36712c2b-ca83-422b-b12b-586c0fdaeac5) | | Buttons | Interface | | -------- | -------- | | <video controls src="https://projects.blender.org/attachments/cf046d50-9273-4931-84bf-387986cc3530"> | <video controls src="https://projects.blender.org/attachments/605d84d9-24ba-4a94-88e8-b7e8d2bcf1bc"> |
Iliya Katushenock added 12 commits 2023-02-08 14:35:51 +01:00
Iliya Katushenock requested review from Jacques Lucke 2023-02-09 16:11:35 +01:00
Iliya Katushenock requested review from Hans Goudey 2023-02-09 16:11:35 +01:00
Iliya Katushenock requested review from Pablo Vazquez 2023-02-09 16:11:43 +01:00
Author
Member

I not sure but it seems to make sense to add one person from ui for reviewing this.

I not sure but it seems to make sense to add one person from ui for reviewing this.
Iliya Katushenock added 1 commit 2023-02-11 17:45:28 +01:00
Brecht Van Lommel added this to the Nodes & Physics project 2023-02-13 09:22:01 +01:00
Iliya Katushenock added 1 commit 2023-02-26 11:16:05 +01:00
Iliya Katushenock added the
Interest
Geometry Nodes
label 2023-04-04 14:21:52 +02:00
Hans Goudey requested changes 2024-01-30 04:56:01 +01:00
Hans Goudey left a comment
Member

The idea seems nice to me, the code is a bit outdated though.

The idea seems nice to me, the code is a bit outdated though.
@ -486,3 +490,2 @@
if (socket->runtime->total_inputs > 2) {
multi_input_socket_offset = (socket->runtime->total_inputs - 2) *
NODE_MULTI_INPUT_LINK_GAP;
multi_input_socket_offset = socket->runtime->total_inputs - 2;
Member

Unrelated change

Unrelated change
mod_moder marked this conversation as resolved
@ -1454,3 +1519,3 @@
}
/* Don't draw multi-input sockets here since they are drawn in a different batch. */
if (sock->flag & SOCK_MULTI_INPUT) {
if (sock->is_multi_input()) {
Member

+1, but unrelated cleanups

+1, but unrelated cleanups
mod_moder marked this conversation as resolved
@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
#include "BLI_compute_context.hh"
#include "BLI_enumerable_thread_specific.hh"
#include "BLI_function_ref.hh"
Member

Necessary to add this include?

Necessary to add this include?
mod_moder marked this conversation as resolved
@ -289,6 +290,18 @@ class GeoTreeLog {
ValueLog *find_socket_value_log(const bNodeSocket &query_socket);
};
inline Vector<ValueLog *> multi_input_socket_value_logs(GeoTreeLog &tree_log,
Member

I don't think this needs to be inline, it's not really a trivial function.

I don't think this needs to be inline, it's not really a trivial function.
mod_moder marked this conversation as resolved
@ -292,0 +294,4 @@
const bNodeSocket &query_socket)
{
BLI_assert(query_socket.is_multi_input());
Vector<ValueLog *> logs;
Member

Array would be a better fit based on the logic here

`Array` would be a better fit based on the logic here
mod_moder marked this conversation as resolved
Member

Other than the indentation on the 4th item "Curve" (not sure if related to this PR in particular), LGTM +1

indent

Other than the indentation on the 4th item "Curve" (not sure if related to this PR in particular), LGTM +1 ![indent](/attachments/f04b97f3-0b60-4479-ae81-752465eb18d6)
126 KiB
Pablo Vazquez approved these changes 2024-04-10 16:22:11 +02:00
Iliya Katushenock added 12 commits 2024-04-11 22:01:02 +02:00
buildbot/vexp-code-patch-lint Build done. Details
buildbot/vexp-code-patch-linux-x86_64 Build done. Details
buildbot/vexp-code-patch-darwin-x86_64 Build done. Details
buildbot/vexp-code-patch-darwin-arm64 Build done. Details
buildbot/vexp-code-patch-windows-amd64 Build done. Details
buildbot/vexp-code-patch-coordinator Build done. Details
e545cbebb1
merge main
Iliya Katushenock added 3 commits 2024-04-12 13:24:49 +02:00
Iliya Katushenock requested review from Hans Goudey 2024-04-12 13:27:44 +02:00
Author
Member

@pablovazquez Fixed.

@pablovazquez Fixed.
Member

Thanks!

tooltip

In that screenshot the bullet points go 1, 2, 3, 6. Are we skipping empty/invalid/disconnected entries?

I think we should not skip those and communicate what's happening instead. Some of the wires are red while others are just a reroute to nowhere, would that yield the same "broken" link or is there a way to say if it's "invalid", "wrong type, "missing", etc.

Thanks! ![tooltip](/attachments/3d966d8d-0662-4a52-a056-12b0e1ab09e3) In that screenshot the bullet points go 1, 2, 3, 6. Are we skipping empty/invalid/disconnected entries? I think we should not skip those and communicate what's happening instead. Some of the wires are red while others are just a reroute to nowhere, would that yield the same "broken" link or is there a way to say if it's "invalid", "wrong type, "missing", etc.
Author
Member

In that screenshot the bullet points go 1, 2, 3, 6. Are we skipping empty/invalid/disconnected entries?

Correct. This is how internally result would looks like.

I think we should not skip those and communicate what's happening instead.

How this should looks like? Not sure about just print numbers with nothing (or some text to duplicate this a lot of time) like\

1. Geometry:
  Mesh: ...
2. Dangling reroute.
3. Dangling reroute.
4. Dangling reroute.
5. Dangling reroute.
6. Geometry: ...

Some of the wires are red while others are just a reroute to nowhere, would that yield the same "broken" link or is there a way to say if it's "invalid", "wrong type, "missing", etc.

We just ignore link if there is no connected source of value:

Nodes View
image image

It is useful to keep see last one value while user is pulls the connection, rather just show 0.

I am okay with add colored elements into tooltip for invalid/muted/dangling links, but not sure about UI of this (and how to add this..)

> In that screenshot the bullet points go 1, 2, 3, 6. Are we skipping empty/invalid/disconnected entries? Correct. This is how internally result would looks like. > I think we should not skip those and communicate what's happening instead. How this should looks like? Not sure about just print numbers with nothing (or some text to duplicate this a lot of time) like\ ``` 1. Geometry: Mesh: ... 2. Dangling reroute. 3. Dangling reroute. 4. Dangling reroute. 5. Dangling reroute. 6. Geometry: ... ``` > Some of the wires are red while others are just a reroute to nowhere, would that yield the same "broken" link or is there a way to say if it's "invalid", "wrong type, "missing", etc. We just ignore link if there is no connected source of value: | Nodes | View | | -- | -- | | ![image](/attachments/cd2d276b-ed4a-4f00-8444-fd265be1641d) | ![image](/attachments/075deb5f-dcc8-4dbc-ac2b-e7e7bb47369b) | It is useful to keep see last one value while user is pulls the connection, rather just show 0. I am okay with add colored elements into tooltip for invalid/muted/dangling links, but not sure about UI of this (and how to add this..)
Member

Dangling reroute.

Adding this seems fine to me, if that info is easily accessible right now. If not, I think it's worth committing this now and improving it further later.

>Dangling reroute. Adding this seems fine to me, if that info is easily accessible right now. If not, I think it's worth committing this now and improving it further later.
Merge conflict checking is in progress. Try again in few moments.

Checkout

From your project repository, check out a new branch and test the changes.
git fetch -u multi_input_tooltip:mod_moder-multi_input_tooltip
git checkout mod_moder-multi_input_tooltip
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Label
Interest
Alembic
Interest
Animation & Rigging
Interest
Asset Browser
Interest
Asset Browser Project Overview
Interest
Audio
Interest
Automated Testing
Interest
Blender Asset Bundle
Interest
BlendFile
Interest
Collada
Interest
Compatibility
Interest
Compositing
Interest
Core
Interest
Cycles
Interest
Dependency Graph
Interest
Development Management
Interest
EEVEE
Interest
EEVEE & Viewport
Interest
Freestyle
Interest
Geometry Nodes
Interest
Grease Pencil
Interest
ID Management
Interest
Images & Movies
Interest
Import Export
Interest
Line Art
Interest
Masking
Interest
Metal
Interest
Modeling
Interest
Modifiers
Interest
Motion Tracking
Interest
Nodes & Physics
Interest
OpenGL
Interest
Overlay
Interest
Overrides
Interest
Performance
Interest
Physics
Interest
Pipeline, Assets & IO
Interest
Platforms, Builds & Tests
Interest
Python API
Interest
Render & Cycles
Interest
Render Pipeline
Interest
Sculpt, Paint & Texture
Interest
Text Editor
Interest
Translations
Interest
Triaging
Interest
Undo
Interest
USD
Interest
User Interface
Interest
UV Editing
Interest
VFX & Video
Interest
Video Sequencer
Interest
Virtual Reality
Interest
Vulkan
Interest
Wayland
Interest
Workbench
Interest: X11
Legacy
Blender 2.8 Project
Legacy
Milestone 1: Basic, Local Asset Browser
Legacy
OpenGL Error
Meta
Good First Issue
Meta
Papercut
Meta
Retrospective
Meta
Security
Module
Animation & Rigging
Module
Core
Module
Development Management
Module
EEVEE & Viewport
Module
Grease Pencil
Module
Modeling
Module
Nodes & Physics
Module
Pipeline, Assets & IO
Module
Platforms, Builds & Tests
Module
Python API
Module
Render & Cycles
Module
Sculpt, Paint & Texture
Module
Triaging
Module
User Interface
Module
VFX & Video
Platform
FreeBSD
Platform
Linux
Platform
macOS
Platform
Windows
Priority
High
Priority
Low
Priority
Normal
Priority
Unbreak Now!
Status
Archived
Status
Confirmed
Status
Duplicate
Status
Needs Info from Developers
Status
Needs Information from User
Status
Needs Triage
Status
Resolved
Type
Bug
Type
Design
Type
Known Issue
Type
Patch
Type
Report
Type
To Do
No Milestone
No Assignees
3 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format 'yyyy-mm-dd'.

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: blender/blender#104468
No description provided.