UI Experiment: Named Undo Snapshots #118091

Harley Acheson · 2024-02-10T20:45:32+01:00

Harley Acheson commented

2024-02-10 20:45:32 +01:00

Allow users to add a named snapshot to the undo history

This PR adds an entry to the top of the Undo History list for "Add Snapshot":

If you select this item it brings up a dialog where you can enter a description for the current state. It defaults to creating one with the current time, but you can type anything you wish.

This way you can plan a complex set of changes that you think might need to be undone and add this before proceeding. It is then easier to find the position afterward

Allow users to add a named snapshot to the undo history --- This PR adds an entry to the top of the Undo History list for "Add Snapshot": ![image](/attachments/54fb32a3-ebd8-4a03-958e-d91cc75b0a19) If you select this item it brings up a dialog where you can enter a description for the current state. It defaults to creating one with the current time, but you can type anything you wish. ![image](/attachments/809c832f-3d9e-45eb-a1a1-1e4dc0d1307d) This way you can plan a complex set of changes that you think might need to be undone and add this before proceeding. It is then easier to find the position afterward

image.png

62 KiB

image.png

35 KiB

image.png

19 KiB

image.png

14 KiB

👀 4 🚀 1

Harley Acheson added 1 commit 2024-02-10 20:45:41 +01:00

d6b29b803e UI Experiment: Undo Waypoints

Allow users to add a snapshot to the undo history

Harley Acheson added this to the User Interface project 2024-02-10 20:46:41 +01:00

Hadrien commented

2024-02-11 14:36:58 +01:00

First-time contributor

Navigating the undo list isn't made easy, partly because it doesn't tell you the actual values fed to operators, so it is often a wild guess where you should click to revert the file to an arbitrary previous state -especially if you've executed an operator several times in a row with different values. In this light, these waypoints seem like a very good idea.

Because of this and the fact that the undo stack is finite, right now when I want to compare two states that are separated by a number of actions I often use incremental saves instead (I just open two Blend files and alt+tab between them).

Now the undo stack is very ephemeral, and I could see this system gain a lot of value if somehow it were retained in the blend file. But I assume that is a completely different matter than adding a placeholder item into a list.

Navigating the undo list isn't made easy, partly because it doesn't tell you the actual values fed to operators, so it is often a wild guess where you should click to revert the file to an arbitrary previous state -_especially_ if you've executed an operator several times in a row with different values. In this light, these waypoints seem like a very good idea. Because of this and the fact that the undo stack is finite, right now when I want to compare two states that are separated by a number of actions I often use incremental saves instead (I just open two Blend files and alt+tab between them). Now the undo stack is very ephemeral, and I could see this system gain a lot of value if somehow it were retained in the blend file. But I assume that is a completely different matter than adding a placeholder item into a list.

👍 1

Harley Acheson commented

2024-02-11 17:08:16 +01:00

...undo list...doesn't tell you the actual values fed to operators, so it is often a wild guess...

What could help with this? Right now I can rotate a single object and the Undo History will get an entry of "Rotate", the name of the operator.

But the "Info Editor" gets an entry that says "bpy.ops.transform.rotate(value=0.530622, orient_axis='Z', orient_type='VIEW', orient_matrix=((%g, %g, %g), (%g, %g, %g), (%g, %g, %g)), orient_matrix_type='VIEW', mirror=False, use_proportional_edit=False, proportional_edit_falloff='SMOOTH', proportional_size=1, use_proportional_connected=False, use_proportional_projected=False, snap=False, snap_elements={'%s'}, use_snap_project=False, snap_target='CLOSEST', use_snap_self=True, use_snap_edit=True, use_snap_nonedit=True, use_snap_selectable=False)"

So I have no idea what you would want the undo history to actually say that would be both differentiating and distinct enough that you could pick that particular operation out of list of 100 operations. Not rhetorical, really asking if you can think about how those items could look to help.

I sometimes think that a timestamp shown for every item might help. The current time is usually easily known and if the entries showed their time if might help differentiating. Or perhaps not. It might help when there are gaps, like finding the state just before you had lunch, but might be just a bunch of numbers adding visual confusion too.

In this light, these waypoints seem like a very good idea.

Me too, but still exploring with it. I think the name and timestamp idea is a bit lame. I was trying to see if something quickly set could be useful. But I think that should open a dialog where you enter a custom description instead.

I often use incremental saves instead (I just open two Blend files and alt+tab between them).

It might be nice if saving added a entry to the history list. We obviously can't "unsave" but there could be an inactive (grey-out) entry saying "Saved at..." or whatever.

> ...undo list...doesn't tell you the actual values fed to operators, so it is often a wild guess... What could help with this? Right now I can rotate a single object and the Undo History will get an entry of "Rotate", the name of the operator. But the "Info Editor" gets an entry that says "bpy.ops.transform.rotate(value=0.530622, orient_axis='Z', orient_type='VIEW', orient_matrix=((%g, %g, %g), (%g, %g, %g), (%g, %g, %g)), orient_matrix_type='VIEW', mirror=False, use_proportional_edit=False, proportional_edit_falloff='SMOOTH', proportional_size=1, use_proportional_connected=False, use_proportional_projected=False, snap=False, snap_elements={'%s'}, use_snap_project=False, snap_target='CLOSEST', use_snap_self=True, use_snap_edit=True, use_snap_nonedit=True, use_snap_selectable=False)" So I have no idea what you would want the undo history to actually say that would be both differentiating and distinct enough that you could pick that particular operation out of list of 100 operations. Not rhetorical, really asking if you can think about how those items could look to help. I sometimes think that a timestamp shown for every item might help. The current time is usually easily known and if the entries showed their time if might help differentiating. Or perhaps not. It might help when there are gaps, like finding the state just before you had lunch, but might be just a bunch of numbers adding visual confusion too. > In this light, these waypoints seem like a very good idea. Me too, but still exploring with it. I think the name and timestamp idea is a bit lame. I was trying to see if something quickly set could be useful. But I think that should open a dialog where you enter a custom description instead. > I often use incremental saves instead (I just open two Blend files and alt+tab between them). It might be nice if saving added a entry to the history list. We obviously can't "unsave" but there could be an inactive (grey-out) entry saying "Saved at..." or whatever.

Matt commented

2024-02-11 21:43:18 +01:00

First-time contributor

This is pretty neat I think. Like you or others said, if you did like 30 things and not sure where you were/what is what.

Better than nothing/the list it is now IMO

This is pretty neat I think. Like you or others said, if you did like 30 things and not sure where you were/what is what. Better than nothing/the list it is now IMO

hamza.SMA commented

2024-02-11 23:36:47 +01:00

First-time contributor

naming the waypoint would be awesome like describing a state / a finished step .
or let it that default name and date: month/day/hour/minutes + having dialog for custom tooltip for this waypoint so hovering on it shows the cusom description (if can be edited later would be perfect)

naming the waypoint would be awesome like describing a state / a finished step . or let it that default name and date: month/day/hour/minutes + having dialog for custom tooltip for this waypoint so hovering on it shows the cusom description (if can be edited later would be perfect)

sanek122005 commented

2024-02-11 23:52:32 +01:00

First-time contributor

I don't like this idea, even if add the ability to assign names to waypoints. The number of steps is not infinite, the data is at risk of being easily lost. in addition, it seems to me that it is worth working much more with the design of this function, turning it into full-fledged snapshots with its own UI and additional functions

👎 1

Harley Acheson commented

2024-02-12 02:10:38 +01:00

The number of steps is not infinite, the data is at risk of being easily lost.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Can you explain further?

I don't like this idea...it is worth working much more with the design of this function...

You say both that you "don't like this" and also that it is "worth working" more on it, which I find confusing.

turning it into full-fledged snapshots with its own UI and additional functions

What "UI and additional functions" would be required to turn it into "full-fledged snapshots" ? I need details.

> The number of steps is not infinite, the data is at risk of being easily lost. I'm not sure what you mean by this. Can you explain further? > I don't like this idea...it is worth working much more with the design of this function... You say both that you "don't like this" and also that it is "worth working" more on it, which I find confusing. > turning it into full-fledged snapshots with its own UI and additional functions What "UI and additional functions" would be required to turn it into "full-fledged snapshots" ? I need details.

sanek122005 commented

2024-02-12 11:50:13 +01:00

First-time contributor

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Can you explain further?

The number of undo steps is not infinite. yes, the maximum number of steps is 256, which is quite a lot, but the user, for example, can make many small movements that create a undo step: move the vertex a little, draw a few strokes with a brush, etc. Since waypoints are essentially a undo step, they can easily be erased.

You say both that you "don't like this" and also that it is "worth working" more on it, which I find confusing.

I believe that if work on this feature goes beyond a small experiment, then much more work needs to be done on it.

What "UI and additional functions" would be required to turn it into "full-fledged snapshots" ? I need details.

in your example, the waypoints are quite simple. they are more like bookmarks. you can develop idea, for example, add additional metadata like a screenshot or a description of a waypoint, put them in a separate list, because usually undo history looks very cumbersome

> I'm not sure what you mean by this. Can you explain further? The number of undo steps is not infinite. yes, the maximum number of steps is 256, which is quite a lot, but the user, for example, can make many small movements that create a undo step: move the vertex a little, draw a few strokes with a brush, etc. Since waypoints are essentially a undo step, they can easily be erased. > You say both that you "don't like this" and also that it is "worth working" more on it, which I find confusing. I believe that if work on this feature goes beyond a small experiment, then much more work needs to be done on it. > What "UI and additional functions" would be required to turn it into "full-fledged snapshots" ? I need details. in your example, the waypoints are quite simple. they are more like bookmarks. you can develop idea, for example, add additional metadata like a screenshot or a description of a waypoint, put them in a separate list, because usually undo history looks very cumbersome

Hadrien commented

2024-02-12 16:21:15 +01:00

First-time contributor

Right now I can rotate a single object and the Undo History will get an entry of "Rotate", the name of the operator.

But the "Info Editor" gets an entry that says "bpy.ops.transform.rotate(value=0.530622, orient_axis='Z', orient_type='VIEW', orient_matrix=((%g, %g, %g), (%g, %g, %g), (%g, %g, %g)), orient_matrix_type='VIEW', mirror=False, use_proportional_edit=False, proportional_edit_falloff='SMOOTH', proportional_size=1, use_proportional_connected=False, use_proportional_projected=False, snap=False, snap_elements={'%s'}, use_snap_project=False, snap_target='CLOSEST', use_snap_self=True, use_snap_edit=True, use_snap_nonedit=True, use_snap_selectable=False)"

So I have no idea what you would want the undo history to actually say that would be both differentiating and distinct enough that you could pick that particular operation out of list of 100 operations. Not rhetorical, really asking if you can think about how those items could look to help.

I am fairly confident increasing the verbosity of the undo stack in a way that clarifies it for most people is possible, but there would be some cherry-picking to do, concerning what to include exactly. For instance, the transform operator could report axis constraints, because that's often meaningful to the user, can help pick it apart from its immediate neighbors. It could also report a distance traveled and the transform orientation used. That comes up to : "Move 3.14m Local X" at worst (=longest).
The extrude operator could report the number of faces and the length...the frame change operator (especially interesting for animators) would report on the new frame number, changing a property anywhere in the interface would show its name (not just its new value) and potentially the object/scene it lives on, etc. I feel that would address the issue of an inscrutable undo stack more frontally than providing a way to place landmarks (which absolutely still make sense in a world where we have a clearer undo stack).

> Right now I can rotate a single object and the Undo History will get an entry of "Rotate", the name of the operator. > > But the "Info Editor" gets an entry that says "bpy.ops.transform.rotate(value=0.530622, orient_axis='Z', orient_type='VIEW', orient_matrix=((%g, %g, %g), (%g, %g, %g), (%g, %g, %g)), orient_matrix_type='VIEW', mirror=False, use_proportional_edit=False, proportional_edit_falloff='SMOOTH', proportional_size=1, use_proportional_connected=False, use_proportional_projected=False, snap=False, snap_elements={'%s'}, use_snap_project=False, snap_target='CLOSEST', use_snap_self=True, use_snap_edit=True, use_snap_nonedit=True, use_snap_selectable=False)" > > So I have no idea what you would want the undo history to actually say that would be both differentiating and distinct enough that you could pick that particular operation out of list of 100 operations. Not rhetorical, really asking if you can think about how those items could look to help. I am fairly confident increasing the verbosity of the undo stack in a way that clarifies it for most people is possible, but there would be some cherry-picking to do, concerning what to include exactly. For instance, the transform operator could report axis constraints, because that's often meaningful to the user, can help pick it apart from its immediate neighbors. It could also report a distance traveled and the transform orientation used. That comes up to : "_Move 3.14m Local X_" at worst (=longest). The extrude operator could report the number of faces and the length...the frame change operator (especially interesting for animators) would report on the new frame number, changing a property anywhere in the interface would show its name (not just its new value) and potentially the object/scene it lives on, etc. I feel that would address the issue of an inscrutable undo stack more frontally than providing a way to place landmarks (which absolutely still make sense in a world where we have a clearer undo stack).

👍 2

Harley Acheson added 1 commit 2024-02-19 02:00:30 +01:00

d948244463 Merge branch 'main' of projects.blender.org:blender/blender into UndoWaypoints

Harley Acheson added 1 commit 2024-02-19 02:10:21 +01:00

83e9273172 Waypoint -> snapshot. Custom snapshot descriptions.

Harley Acheson added 1 commit 2024-02-19 02:17:38 +01:00

6f5561f23c Clear message after setting

Harley Acheson changed title from ~~UI Experiment: Undo Waypoints~~ to UI Experiment: Undo Snapshots

2024-02-19 02:24:28 +01:00

Harley Acheson commented

2024-02-19 02:28:13 +01:00

@HadrienBrissaud

I updated this so that it now brings up a small dialog where you can enter any text you want to name the snapshot. But with a default, in case we are lazy, of "Snapshot at" and the current time.

The term "Snapshot" works for me a bit better than "Waypoint", especially since this action add an undo snapshot. So not just marking a place in the list but adding a new entry. "Checkpoint" could also work maybe.

@HadrienBrissaud I updated this so that it now brings up a small dialog where you can enter any text you want to name the snapshot. But with a default, in case we are lazy, of "Snapshot at" and the current time. The term "Snapshot" works for me a bit better than "Waypoint", especially since this action add an undo snapshot. So not just marking a place in the list but adding a new entry. "Checkpoint" could also work maybe.

Harley Acheson changed title from ~~UI Experiment: Undo Snapshots~~ to UI Experiment: Named Undo Snapshots

2024-02-19 02:32:07 +01:00

Brecht Van Lommel commented

2024-02-27 13:57:17 +01:00

Personally I think the usefulness of this feature is not enough to justify it, undo steps are ephemeral and this is not a persistent snapshot. And going into the topic of how to make such snapshots persistent opens another can of worms, that I don't think we should be spending time on now.

Harley Acheson referenced this pull request

2024-03-01 00:06:42 +01:00

Roadmap #118940

Harley Acheson closed this pull request

2024-03-02 19:14:19 +01:00