blender
/
blender
131
398
Fork 577
Code Issues 6.2k Pull Requests 743 Projects 19 Wiki Activity

UI: Outliner "File Mode" Manage User Count #118691

Merged
Harley Acheson merged 10 commits from Harley/blender:OutlinerUserCount into main 2024-04-20 02:50:21 +02:00
Conversation 53 Commits 10 Files Changed 6 +89 -47
Harley Acheson commented 2024-02-23 23:56:10 +01:00
Member
Copy Link

In Outliner "Blender File Mode" view, show user counts, and allow
removing and adding fake user, requested in #118655.

While in Outliner "Blender File Mode" this PR shows user counts and fake user status. The count shows the total number of users, so including fake_user if set. You can click on the shield icon to add or remove fake_user.

In the following, "Cone" has no users and no "fake user" protection. It will be removed if this status is not changed.

"Cube" has one real user and is not protected from deletion (no fake user). "Icosphere" has no real users but is protected from deletion by a fake_user. "Suzanne" has a real user and also has deletion protection. Torus has five real users and no deletion protection. Objects show a user count but not a shield button.

image

Tooltip hints

This PR avoids the use of the "fake user" term in favor of describing this as a "protection from deletion."

  • Hovering over a linked item with zero users
    • "Item has no users and will be removed."
  • Hovering over a regular item with zero users
    • "Item has no users and will be removed.", "Click to protect from deletion."
  • Hovering over a linked item that has fake_user
    • "Item is protected from deletion."
  • Hovering over a regular item that has fake_user
    • "Click to remove protection from deletion."
  • Hovering over a linked item with users, but not fake_user
    • "Item is not protected from deletion."
  • Hovering over a regular item with users, but not fake_user
    • "Click to add protection from deletion."

Hovering over the user count just says "Number of users."

Note this PR also changes the "Unused Data" mode similarly:

image

In Outliner "Blender File Mode" view, show user counts, and allow removing and adding fake user, requested in #118655. --- While in Outliner "Blender File Mode" this PR shows user counts and fake user status. The count shows the total number of users, so including fake_user if set. You can click on the shield icon to add or remove fake_user. In the following, "Cone" has no users and no "fake user" protection. It will be removed if this status is not changed. "Cube" has one real user and is not protected from deletion (no fake user). "Icosphere" has no real users but is protected from deletion by a fake_user. "Suzanne" has a real user and also has deletion protection. Torus has five real users and no deletion protection. Objects show a user count but not a shield button. ![image](/attachments/06c928b7-8573-4c5a-85a8-df4d384aefeb) ### Tooltip hints This PR avoids the use of the "fake user" term in favor of describing this as a "protection from deletion." * Hovering over a _linked_ item with zero users * "Item has no users and will be removed." * Hovering over a regular item with zero users * "Item has no users and will be removed.", "Click to protect from deletion." * Hovering over a _linked_ item that has fake_user * "Item is protected from deletion." * Hovering over a regular item that has fake_user * "Click to remove protection from deletion." * Hovering over a _linked_ item with users, but not fake_user * "Item is not protected from deletion." * Hovering over a regular item with users, but not fake_user * "Click to add protection from deletion." Hovering over the user count just says "Number of users." Note this PR also changes the "Unused Data" mode similarly: ![image](/attachments/5547a438-52b2-43b5-8462-cf5f82a3137c)
image.png
21 KiB
image.png
21 KiB
image.png
19 KiB
image.png
35 KiB
image.png
36 KiB
image.png
26 KiB
image.png image.png image.png image.png
👍 7 ❤️ 5 🚀 1
Harley Acheson added this to the User Interface project 2024-02-23 23:56:45 +01:00
Harley Acheson changed title from UI Demonstration: Outliner "File Mode" Manage User Count to UI: Outliner "File Mode" Manage User Count 2024-02-24 01:17:34 +01:00
Brecht Van Lommel commented 2024-02-24 02:52:52 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

It's not obvious that clicking the trash or users icon will mark the datablock as protected. You might rather expect that clicking the trash icon will delete the datablock.

It's not obvious that clicking the trash or users icon will mark the datablock as protected. You might rather expect that clicking the trash icon will delete the datablock.
Harley Acheson commented 2024-02-24 03:31:43 +01:00
Author
Member
Copy Link

It's not obvious that clicking the trash or users icon will mark the datablock as protected. You might rather expect that clicking the trash icon will delete the datablock.

I updated this PR so it is back to the empty shield, but does show "0" in this case, to see if this seems any more obvious.

> It's not obvious that clicking the trash or users icon will mark the datablock as protected. You might rather expect that clicking the trash icon will delete the datablock. I updated this PR so it is back to the empty shield, but does show "0" in this case, to see if this seems any more obvious.
Harley Acheson commented 2024-02-24 03:37:36 +01:00
Author
Member
Copy Link

@brecht - ...or users icon...

This PR currently allows adding and removing fake user from items that don't have any real users. Is there something that could happen to items with real single or multiple users?

I did try playing with the idea of allowing the reduction of the user count to zero for items that have a single real user. That was interesting. Mark your only camera for removal, save and load and it is gone. On load there is a warning to console that something was unexpectedly not found but otherwise it worked fine.

> @brecht - ...or **users** icon... This PR currently allows adding and removing fake user from items that don't have any real users. Is there something that could happen to items with _real_ single or multiple users? I did try playing with the idea of allowing the reduction of the user count to zero for items that have a single real user. That was interesting. Mark your only camera for removal, save and load and it is gone. On load there is a warning to console that something was unexpectedly not found but otherwise it worked fine.
Harley Acheson commented 2024-02-24 04:46:28 +01:00
Author
Member
Copy Link

@brecht

Of course if this continue to look not right, or if we do need to add "fake user" to items that already have real users, I can do this in two columns.

@brecht Of course if this continue to look not right, or if we do need to add "fake user" to items that already have real users, I can do this in two columns.
Nika Kutsniashvili commented 2024-02-24 10:05:33 +01:00
Contributor
Copy Link

Having one user always marked with shield is misleading. Most of the users in file have one user but aren't protected with fake user. This will lead to impression that removing that user is fine because its protected with fake user. There needs to be shield icon if single user is fake user and regular icon if its regular user.

Fake user is unrelated functionality and doesn't have anything to do with user count. I might have 7 users but still want to protect it as fake user, just in case, to protect it in upcoming recursive Purge for example. Not having ability to mark that is also not good. Funcinality-wise I think we're losing one by combining two concepts together.

Having one user always marked with shield is misleading. Most of the users in file have one user but aren't protected with fake user. This will lead to impression that removing that user is fine because its protected with fake user. There needs to be shield icon if single user is fake user and regular icon if its regular user. Fake user is unrelated functionality and doesn't have anything to do with user count. I might have 7 users but still want to protect it as fake user, just in case, to protect it in upcoming recursive Purge for example. Not having ability to mark that is also not good. Funcinality-wise I think we're losing one by combining two concepts together.
Harley Acheson commented 2024-02-24 19:49:19 +01:00
Author
Member
Copy Link

There needs to be shield icon if single user is fake user and regular icon if its regular user.

That is what this PR does. There might be some captures that are incorrect though so I will update this to make it more clear.

I might have 7 users but still want to protect it as fake user...

Makes sense and I have updated this PR to allow that. Will update the captures to illustrate this.

> There needs to be shield icon if single user is fake user and regular icon if its regular user. That is what this PR does. There might be some captures that are incorrect though so I will update this to make it more clear. > I might have 7 users but still want to protect it as fake user... Makes sense and I have updated this PR to allow that. Will update the captures to illustrate this.
👍 1
Nikhil Shringarpurey commented 2024-02-24 20:39:00 +01:00
Member
Copy Link

This looks really good. An important idea (though likely controversial) is that the concept of "Fake User" really needs to go away in favor of better naming. This is a very "programmer-centric" way of looking at things, whereas most users will never align to such terminology. As Blender has been continuing to improve its UI paradigms, the "fake user" naming is certainly one that I would suggest needs to die a recent death.

This looks really good. An important idea (though likely controversial) is that the concept of "Fake User" really needs to go away in favor of better naming. This is a very "programmer-centric" way of looking at things, whereas most users will never align to such terminology. As Blender has been continuing to improve its UI paradigms, the "fake user" naming is certainly one that I would suggest needs to die a recent death.
👍 2
Nika Kutsniashvili commented 2024-02-25 00:40:16 +01:00
Contributor
Copy Link

There needs to be shield icon if single user is fake user and regular icon if its regular user.

That is what this PR does. There might be some captures that are incorrect though so I will update this to make it more clear.

I might have 7 users but still want to protect it as fake user...

Makes sense and I have updated this PR to allow that. Will update the captures to illustrate this.

I see what you did. Really perfect thanks for clarifying.

With Blend File mode acquiring this functionality I would say "Orphaned Data" mode of outliner doesn't really need to exist anymore. Blend File mode can have filtering option "Only Orphaned" and it will be exactly the same, but probably much less code and maintenance.

> > There needs to be shield icon if single user is fake user and regular icon if its regular user. > > That is what this PR does. There might be some captures that are incorrect though so I will update this to make it more clear. > > > I might have 7 users but still want to protect it as fake user... > > Makes sense and I have updated this PR to allow that. Will update the captures to illustrate this. I see what you did. Really perfect thanks for clarifying. With Blend File mode acquiring this functionality I would say "Orphaned Data" mode of outliner doesn't really need to exist anymore. Blend File mode can have filtering option "Only Orphaned" and it will be exactly the same, but probably much less code and maintenance.
Brecht Van Lommel requested review from Pablo Vazquez 2024-02-26 15:40:05 +01:00
Brecht Van Lommel reviewed 2024-02-26 15:44:29 +01:00
Brecht Van Lommel left a comment
Owner
Copy Link

It's more elegant to have a single column and looks nice.

Adding protection still feels rather hidden to me when there are users, it's not obvious that it's possible even with a tooltip. Also wondering if the users icon is appropriate, as it's the same word but not quite the same meaning.

My preference would be to just have an empty shield instead of the users icon, but this could use some feedback from others in the UI team.

It's more elegant to have a single column and looks nice. Adding protection still feels rather hidden to me when there are users, it's not obvious that it's possible even with a tooltip. Also wondering if the users icon is appropriate, as it's the same word but not quite the same meaning. My preference would be to just have an empty shield instead of the users icon, but this could use some feedback from others in the UI team.
source/blender/editors/space_outliner/outliner_draw.cc Outdated
@ -1826,0 +1858,4 @@
if (id->flag & LIB_FAKEUSER) {
icon = ICON_FAKE_USER_ON;
tip = ID_IS_LINKED(id) ? TIP_("Item is protected from deletion") :
TIP_("Click to remove deletion protection");
Brecht Van Lommel commented 2024-02-26 15:40:57 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

deletion protection -> protection from deletion?

For consistency with "Click to add" tooltip.

deletion protection -> protection from deletion? For consistency with "Click to add" tooltip.
Harley marked this conversation as resolved
Brecht Van Lommel commented 2024-02-26 15:46:08 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

With Blend File mode acquiring this functionality I would say "Orphaned Data" mode of outliner doesn't really need to exist anymore. Blend File mode can have filtering option "Only Orphaned" and it will be exactly the same, but probably much less code and maintenance.

I would not bother changing this, it's not really the same and I doubt it saves much code or maintenance.

We should rename "Orphan Data" to "Unused Data" now though, to go along with File > Cleanup changes.

> With Blend File mode acquiring this functionality I would say "Orphaned Data" mode of outliner doesn't really need to exist anymore. Blend File mode can have filtering option "Only Orphaned" and it will be exactly the same, but probably much less code and maintenance. I would not bother changing this, it's not really the same and I doubt it saves much code or maintenance. We should rename "Orphan Data" to "Unused Data" now though, to go along with File > Cleanup changes.
Harley Acheson commented 2024-02-26 19:22:47 +01:00
Author
Member
Copy Link

@brecht - just have an empty shield instead of the users icon

That doesn't sound like enough differentiation between the most important state and less important states. Having 0 users (with removal imminent) would look almost the same as 4 users without fake_user, except for the small number. Unless I am not quite clear on what is important for users to to see here.

wondering if the users icon is appropriate, as it's the same word but not quite the same meaning.

For me it helps explain the column a bit better. The metaphor kinda works...

Not sure how to phrase this. Is the ownership of items here always a single group of things? For example could we always show an icon for "mesh object" for mesh items? Scene icon for lights (sorry, not sure who owns lights). So instead of showing the users as anonymous people we use icons that represent type of object that uses them?

The problems I see with this PR as it is now:

There is a missing connection between user count and the column. I like that "fake user" is not used. But I am missing the explanation of what the "3" or "0" represents. That could go away if I could think of how to incorporate that into the tooltips, but no luck so far.

I find the state of having 0 users without fake user to not be represented strongly enough. It does have some visual contrast in that it changes from bright and filled to empty, but it doesn't seem to indicate a state of imminent removal. But not sure how strong users would want this to be. The shield could be filled with red, and or an "X" in it. The state could instead use a the warning icon and be yellow?

> @brecht - just have an empty shield instead of the users icon That doesn't sound like enough differentiation between the most important state and less important states. Having 0 users (with removal imminent) would look almost the same as 4 users without fake_user, except for the small number. Unless I am not quite clear on what is important for users to to see here. > wondering if the users icon is appropriate, as it's the same word but not quite the same meaning. For me it helps explain the column a bit better. The metaphor kinda works... Not sure how to phrase this. Is the ownership of items here always a single group of things? For example could we always show an icon for "mesh object" for mesh items? Scene icon for lights (sorry, not sure who owns lights). So instead of showing the users as anonymous people we use icons that represent type of object that uses them? The problems I see with this PR as it is now: There is a missing connection between user count and the column. I like that "fake user" is not used. But I am missing the explanation of what the "3" or "0" represents. That could go away if I could think of how to incorporate that into the tooltips, but no luck so far. I find the state of having 0 users without fake user to not be represented strongly enough. It does have some visual contrast in that it changes from bright and filled to empty, but it doesn't seem to indicate a state of imminent removal. But not sure how strong users would want this to be. The shield could be filled with red, and or an "X" in it. The state could instead use a the warning icon and be yellow?
Dalai Felinto commented 2024-02-26 19:42:12 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

@Harley in the current proposal would I still be able to click (or drag even) on the shield to set/unset fake user?

It’s also not clear to me (looking at the UI) when would I see the shield and when not. Is it shield whenever there is fake user, and there user icon otherwise (unless there are no users and then you show the empty shield?)?

I find strange to see the number by the shield since we are not really counting the number of shields.

As for some of the original motivation to use the number by the data block icons, this is what we do elsewhere already in the ID templates.

@Harley in the current proposal would I still be able to click (or drag even) on the shield to set/unset fake user? It’s also not clear to me (looking at the UI) when would I see the shield and when not. Is it shield whenever there is fake user, and there user icon otherwise (unless there are no users and then you show the empty shield?)? I find strange to see the number by the shield since we are not really counting the number of shields. - - - As for some of the original motivation to use the number by the data block icons, this is what we do elsewhere already in the ID templates.
Harley Acheson commented 2024-02-26 20:02:54 +01:00
Author
Member
Copy Link

@Harley in the current proposal would I still be able to click (or drag even) on the shield to set/unset fake user?

Yes, you can click on any item in the column to set/unset fake user. But dragging does not (yet) work.

It’s also not clear to me (looking at the UI) when would I see the shield and when not. Is it shield whenever there is fake user, and there user icon otherwise (unless there are no users and then you show the empty shield?)?

It shows an empty shield and zero users for items in danger of deletion. It shows a shield with checkmark if fake user is set. Otherwise shows the users icon. This way you can differentiate between an item that has a single user that is real versus one that is fake. And you can add fake user to items with multiple users to ensure they stick around.

I find strange to see the number by the shield since we are not really counting the number of shields.

There is definitely a missing connection here explaining that the numbers are all user counts.

As for some of the original motivation to use the number by the data block icons, this is what we do elsewhere already in the ID templates.

In your mockup, the following shows three items. The first is without users, but the other two I can't guess. I'm assuming that the second item has 2 real users and fake user? And the third item has only a fake user? Or are you showing only the count of real users?

image

But the big problem arises when you collapse this group:

image

Now the "3" here means number of items in the list, not number of users. With a mixture of open and closed sections this would get even weirder.

> @Harley in the current proposal would I still be able to click (or drag even) on the shield to set/unset fake user? Yes, you can click on **any** item in the column to set/unset fake user. But dragging does not (yet) work. > It’s also not clear to me (looking at the UI) when would I see the shield and when not. Is it shield whenever there is fake user, and there user icon otherwise (unless there are no users and then you show the empty shield?)? It shows an empty shield and zero users for items in danger of deletion. It shows a shield with checkmark if fake user is set. Otherwise shows the users icon. This way you can differentiate between an item that has a single user that is real versus one that is fake. And you can add fake user to items with multiple users to ensure they stick around. > I find strange to see the number by the shield since we are not really counting the number of shields. There is definitely a missing connection here explaining that the numbers are all user counts. > As for some of the original motivation to use the number by the data block icons, this is what we do elsewhere already in the ID templates. In your mockup, the following shows three items. The first is without users, but the other two I can't guess. I'm assuming that the second item has 2 real users and fake user? And the third item has only a fake user? Or are you showing only the count of real users? ![image](/attachments/8d94a591-c81e-4f8b-b28d-f2d942c57aa4) But the big problem arises when you collapse this group: ![image](/attachments/74fe6089-c7f0-4e78-827b-587c6e1b9af7) Now the "3" here means number of items in the list, not number of users. With a mixture of open and closed sections this would get even weirder.
image.png
11 KiB
image.png
22 KiB
Harley Acheson commented 2024-02-28 00:55:28 +01:00
Author
Member
Copy Link

@dfelinto @brecht

I updated this patch to incorporate an idea we hatched in our meeting today.

  • It does not use that "user" icon, only the "shield" icons
  • The counts are always of REAL users, never including fake user.
  • The empty shield is shown as RED when there are no users and no fake_user protection.

It does make the column more visually and logically consistent, showing only shields. We can still differentiate between an item with one fake user versus one real user. The state of imminent deletion is shown in a more alarming way.

It also separates the "fake user" from real users, so easier to consider it a separate "deletion protection" mechanism. And also easier to remove it.

But how does it "read" to you?

image

@dfelinto @brecht I updated this patch to incorporate an idea we hatched in our meeting today. * It does not use that "user" icon, only the "shield" icons * The counts are always of REAL users, never including fake user. * The empty shield is shown as RED when there are no users and no fake_user protection. It does make the column more visually and logically consistent, showing only shields. We can still differentiate between an item with one fake user versus one real user. The state of imminent deletion is shown in a more alarming way. It also separates the "fake user" from real users, so easier to consider it a separate "deletion protection" mechanism. And also easier to remove it. But how does it "read" to you? ![image](/attachments/eeecfe4e-66e2-4434-a84c-610cd091ccb7)
image.png
31 KiB
❤️ 2
Grigoriy Titaev commented 2024-02-28 09:17:07 +01:00
First-time contributor
Copy Link

The "Shield" icon with a number will not work for objects, because objects do not have a fake_user.

I propose add two icons "Shield" and "Users":
Count Users.png

Then you can use only "Users" icon for objects, without a "Shield" icon:
Count Users - Objects.png

When using two icons, you can add actions to them.

  • Click on "Shield" icon to on/off fake_user
  • Click on "Users" icon to show the list of users, also how it works for now:
    User List.png
The "Shield" icon with a number will not work for objects, because objects do not have a fake_user. I propose add two icons "Shield" and "Users": ![Count Users.png](/attachments/7dbdddb6-15b0-4040-bf17-a1f50a075760) Then you can use only "Users" icon for objects, without a "Shield" icon: ![Count Users - Objects.png](/attachments/f0f4a638-c4a4-42bd-adf7-60e28c5b92a6) When using two icons, you can add actions to them. - Click on "Shield" icon to on/off fake_user - Click on "Users" icon to show the list of users, also how it works for now: ![User List.png](/attachments/b11c4286-0858-4904-9bf6-ad45c1343fef)
Count Users - Objects.png
94 KiB
Count Users.png
37 KiB
User List.png
30 KiB
Brecht Van Lommel commented 2024-02-28 18:09:39 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

I would expect the number to be red instead of the shield? But the idea seems fine to me.

I think objects don't show user counts in the user interface in general, so they could also not show either fake user or the user count here. But it can be useful to see it, so showing it with a different icon seems fine.

For showing the users, if we put that in a tooltip we don't need distinct icons. But a tooltip does have limited space, and no interactivity in case we want to add a way to remove the user from there. But such editing functionality could also be in a context menu.

I would expect the number to be red instead of the shield? But the idea seems fine to me. I think objects don't show user counts in the user interface in general, so they could also not show either fake user or the user count here. But it can be useful to see it, so showing it with a different icon seems fine. For showing the users, if we put that in a tooltip we don't need distinct icons. But a tooltip does have limited space, and no interactivity in case we want to add a way to remove the user from there. But such editing functionality could also be in a context menu.
Harley Acheson commented 2024-02-28 19:23:05 +01:00
Author
Member
Copy Link

I would expect the number to be red instead of the shield? But the idea seems fine to me.

I updated the PR so we could to either or both, now showing both red.

I think objects don't show user counts in the user interface in general, so they could also not show either fake user or the user count here. But it can be useful to see it, so showing it with a different icon seems fine.

This PR is now showing objects with that "users" icon, disabled, showing count. No idea if it helps or confuses.

image

> I would expect the number to be red instead of the shield? But the idea seems fine to me. I updated the PR so we could to either or both, now showing both red. > I think objects don't show user counts in the user interface in general, so they could also not show either fake user or the user count here. But it can be useful to see it, so showing it with a different icon seems fine. This PR is now showing objects with that "users" icon, disabled, showing count. No idea if it helps or confuses. ![image](/attachments/0e33846d-6e46-4b14-9cae-0dfa8644f071)
image.png
34 KiB
👍 1 ❤️ 1
Grigoriy Titaev commented 2024-02-28 20:20:58 +01:00
First-time contributor
Copy Link

The number with the shield is confusing.
It looks like the number of shields, not the number of users.

The number with the shield is confusing. It looks like the number of shields, not the number of users.
👍 2
Harley Acheson commented 2024-02-28 20:40:58 +01:00
Author
Member
Copy Link

@brecht - For showing the users, if we put that in a tooltip we don't need distinct icons. But a tooltip does have limited space, and no interactivity in case we want to add a way to remove the user from there. But such editing functionality could also be in a context menu.

I updated this PR to show the list of users on the tooltip, up to a maximum of 100.

image

It doesn't do so for objects, only because I wasn't sure how to get an object with multiple users.

> @brecht - For showing the users, if we put that in a tooltip we don't need distinct icons. But a tooltip does have limited space, and no interactivity in case we want to add a way to remove the user from there. But such editing functionality could also be in a context menu. I updated this PR to show the list of users on the tooltip, up to a maximum of 100. ![image](/attachments/fc6659a5-7a2a-4c51-82e6-52f682f82f18) It doesn't do so for objects, only because I wasn't sure how to get an object with multiple users.
image.png
36 KiB
Grigoriy Titaev commented 2024-02-29 07:22:07 +01:00
First-time contributor
Copy Link

I wasn't sure how to get an object with multiple users.

Link Objects to Scene (Ctrl + L) in 3D Viewport or Drag and Drop Object (LMB + Ctrl) in Outliner:
Object with Multiple Users 1.png

Then you got an object with multiple users:
Object with Multiple Users 2.png

> I wasn't sure how to get an object with multiple users. `Link Objects to Scene` (Ctrl + L) in `3D Viewport` or Drag and Drop Object (LMB + Ctrl) in `Outliner`: ![Object with Multiple Users 1.png](/attachments/c7f9ca83-54ec-4acf-817f-ce1e98747c24) Then you got an object with multiple users: ![Object with Multiple Users 2.png](/attachments/0be5c66f-00d9-44bb-b4c4-d42148dac86d)
Object with Multiple Users 1.png
165 KiB
Object with Multiple Users 2.png
77 KiB
Philipp Oeser commented 2024-02-29 09:21:30 +01:00
Member
Copy Link

For showing the users, if we put that in a tooltip we don't need distinct icons. But a tooltip does have limited space, and no interactivity in case we want to add a way to remove the user from there. But such editing functionality could also be in a context menu.

Being able to inspect users somewhere in the UI is very helpful (dont know how many times I have been using bpy.data.user_map in debugging/triaging).

@brecht : is removing [individual] users something we would really want to support? I mean we do have .user_clear() but that already runs into undefined territory (e.g. removing object users from meshes will make the objects to empties and spit out something like X local ObjectData and X local Object proxies are reported to be missing, this should never happen)

> For showing the users, if we put that in a tooltip we don't need distinct icons. But a tooltip does have limited space, and no interactivity in case we want to add a way to remove the user from there. But such editing functionality could also be in a context menu. Being able to inspect users somewhere in the UI is very helpful (dont know how many times I have been using `bpy.data.user_map` in debugging/triaging). @brecht : is removing [individual] users something we would really want to support? I mean we do have `.user_clear()` but that already runs into undefined territory (e.g. removing object users from meshes will make the objects to empties and spit out something like `X local ObjectData and X local Object proxies are reported to be missing, this should never happen`)
Brecht Van Lommel commented 2024-02-29 11:16:10 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

I updated the PR so we could to either or both, now showing both red.

I would just do the number. To me the shield being red indicates there is something notable about it being off, whereas most of the time that's just fine.

I think objects don't show user counts in the user interface in general, so they could also not show either fake user or the user count here. But it can be useful to see it, so showing it with a different icon seems fine.

This PR is now showing objects with that "users" icon, disabled, showing count. No idea if it helps or confuses.

image

That's already helpful. I think ideally there would be more information per user, which type of datablock it is. An maybe even showing the RNA path to it, or the name of the last struct in the RNA path. For that we'd need to put each user on its own line.

That's probably beyond this pull request though.

@brecht : is removing [individual] users something we would really want to support? I mean we do have .user_clear() but that already runs into undefined territory (e.g. removing object users from meshes will make the objects to empties and spit out something like X local ObjectData and X local Object proxies are reported to be missing, this should never happen)

I'm not sure how useful it is. It's certainly beyond the scope of this pull request, though does affect the design choices here. I guess we can not worry about it for now, since it's not obviously so useful.

> I updated the PR so we could to either or both, now showing both red. I would just do the number. To me the shield being red indicates there is something notable about it being off, whereas most of the time that's just fine. > > I think objects don't show user counts in the user interface in general, so they could also not show either fake user or the user count here. But it can be useful to see it, so showing it with a different icon seems fine. > > This PR is now showing objects with that "users" icon, disabled, showing count. No idea if it helps or confuses. > > ![image](/attachments/0e33846d-6e46-4b14-9cae-0dfa8644f071) That's already helpful. I think ideally there would be more information per user, which type of datablock it is. An maybe even showing the RNA path to it, or the name of the last struct in the RNA path. For that we'd need to put each user on its own line. That's probably beyond this pull request though. > @brecht : is removing [individual] users something we would really want to support? I mean we do have .user_clear() but that already runs into undefined territory (e.g. removing object users from meshes will make the objects to empties and spit out something like X local ObjectData and X local Object proxies are reported to be missing, this should never happen) I'm not sure how useful it is. It's certainly beyond the scope of this pull request, though does affect the design choices here. I guess we can not worry about it for now, since it's not obviously so useful.
Harley Acheson commented 2024-02-29 21:06:49 +01:00
Author
Member
Copy Link

@brecht - I would just do the number

done.

I think ideally there would be more information per user, which type of datablock it is. An maybe even...

I am apparently too dumb to figure out how to even get the users of objects, or users of materials, etc. I did try using BKE_library_foreach_ID_link before realizing that was getting IDs I am linked to, not IDs that link to me.

> @brecht - I would just do the number done. > I think ideally there would be more information per user, which type of datablock it is. An maybe even... I am apparently too dumb to figure out how to even get the users of objects, or users of materials, etc. I did try using `BKE_library_foreach_ID_link` before realizing that was getting IDs I am linked to, not IDs that link to me.
Dalai Felinto commented 2024-03-01 09:41:27 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

I’ll assume the screenshots are up to date for my feedback.

I find very strange that we see the icon use when there is one user (and no fake user? Or with fake user? I don’t even know). While seeing the shield in every other case.

I still think we should not mix the numbers and the shield, we are not counting the number of shields, that’s confusing for the sake of information density.

My proposal would still be to use the counter on the corner of the data block icons. Even if it could potentially mislead you when the tab is collapsed.

Other than that, if this option is really non desirable, I would add two columns, one for the user count, and one for the shield.

Now I wish this conversation could be had on top of the mockup, not as part of code/PR. I feel that we would have had a quicker turn around and wouldn’t need to wait a whole week for something which was supposed to be simple.

Overall I think before bringing a new idea up it would have been more efficient to first see if the original design would stand. And if not, to give a chance for the original design to be rethought, as opposed to have the design hijacked and the discussion shifted like this.

I’ll assume the screenshots are up to date for my feedback. I find very strange that we see the icon use when there is one user (and no fake user? Or with fake user? I don’t even know). While seeing the shield in every other case. I still think we should not mix the numbers and the shield, we are not counting the number of shields, that’s confusing for the sake of information density. My proposal would still be to use the counter on the corner of the data block icons. Even if it could potentially mislead you when the tab is collapsed. Other than that, if this option is really non desirable, I would add two columns, one for the user count, and one for the shield. Now I wish this conversation could be had on top of the mockup, not as part of code/PR. I feel that we would have had a quicker turn around and wouldn’t need to wait a whole week for something which was supposed to be simple. Overall I think before bringing a new idea up it would have been more efficient to first see if the original design would stand. And if not, to give a chance for the original design to be rethought, as opposed to have the design hijacked and the discussion shifted like this.
Nika Kutsniashvili commented 2024-03-01 09:48:50 +01:00
Contributor
Copy Link

@dfelinto shield icon is always shown on 1 user 0 or multiple. Only excrption is Object which cant have fake user and cant be shielded.

Number on data block icon for me feels line how many of those I have. Not how many users that one has. Thats very distinct. If shield icon is on right user count needs to be there as well so that things that are associated with users are coupled

@dfelinto shield icon is always shown on 1 user 0 or multiple. Only excrption is Object which cant have fake user and cant be shielded. Number on data block icon for me feels line how many of those I have. Not how many users that one has. Thats very distinct. If shield icon is on right user count needs to be there as well so that things that are associated with users are coupled
Dalai Felinto commented 2024-03-15 18:13:34 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Some thoughts while talking with Harley:

  • The community icon is already used (for add-ons).
  • We already have the combination of Users + Fake User in the orphaned data Display.

So I think we could first mimic what we do for orphan data. Then if we want to improve how we show users, we do to both.

Some thoughts while talking with Harley: * The community icon is already used (for add-ons). * We already have the combination of Users + Fake User in the orphaned data Display. So I think we could first mimic what we do for orphan data. Then if we want to improve how we show users, we do to both.
Harley Acheson force-pushed OutlinerUserCount from f95439070e to 2c48fbd6c6 2024-03-15 21:13:21 +01:00 Compare
Harley Acheson commented 2024-03-15 21:23:21 +01:00
Author
Member
Copy Link

@brecht

Chatted with Dalai and decided we should just do it simply and use the same style of display as we currently use for "Unused Data" mode. Here I just use the same code for both, with changes, so the two views use consistent tooltips. I updated the capture and the information in the first comment.

The only thing I'm not sure about is what to do with Objects. This PR is just not showing either the user count nor fake_user shield for these since you mentioned we don't normally allow setting/clearing fake user for these. But I could show user count without a shield, or grey-out shield, etc. I just don't know how important that information is.

@brecht Chatted with Dalai and decided we should just do it simply and use the same style of display as we currently use for "Unused Data" mode. Here I just use the same code for both, with changes, so the two views use consistent tooltips. I updated the capture and the information in the first comment. The only thing I'm not sure about is what to do with Objects. This PR is just not showing either the user count nor fake_user shield for these since you mentioned we don't normally allow setting/clearing fake user for these. But I could show user count without a shield, or grey-out shield, etc. I just don't know how important that information is.
Dalai Felinto commented 2024-03-15 22:23:32 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link
  • I think is fine to still show use number for objects since they do have a use count, right?
  • As for shield, the gray out may be fine.
* I think is fine to still show use number for objects since they do have a use count, right? * As for shield, the gray out may be fine.
Harley Acheson commented 2024-03-15 23:09:06 +01:00
Author
Member
Copy Link
  • I think is fine to still show use number for objects since they do have a use count, right?

It's a bit weird. They do have a user count. In fact we also allow setting fake user if you go to to the "Data API" view. But we don't consider this if you remove an object. So even if you add fake user in "Data API", deleting an object it just goes away.

  • As for shield, the gray out may be fine.

Not sure. It looks like this then:

image

It isn't just that it is hard to tell the difference, but I'd have to explain to users why these shields can't be interacted with. With a tooltip I maybe show something like "Objects do not support deletion protection" or similar perhaps. But not sure I like showing something that is not applicable.

Use ICON_NONE instead?

image

> * I think is fine to still show use number for objects since they do have a use count, right? It's a bit weird. They do have a user count. In fact we also allow setting fake user if you go to to the "Data API" view. But we don't consider this if you remove an object. So even if you add fake user in "Data API", deleting an object it just goes away. > * As for shield, the gray out may be fine. Not sure. It looks like this then: ![image](/attachments/cec1bb4e-4a1f-4bf9-b994-e7c1e24b583a) It isn't just that it is hard to tell the difference, but I'd have to explain to users why these shields can't be interacted with. With a tooltip I maybe show something like "Objects do not support deletion protection" or similar perhaps. But not sure I like showing something that is not applicable. Use ICON_NONE instead? ![image](/attachments/be80d4d5-abb6-4559-9c5e-89b6cf144e0e)
image.png
22 KiB
image.png
24 KiB
Dalai Felinto commented 2024-03-16 09:12:21 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Icon none is fine (better indeed). Why did you made their lines deactivate by the way? I think it is fine to draw their numbers fully white

Icon none is fine (better indeed). Why did you made their lines deactivate by the way? I think it is fine to draw their numbers fully white
Harley Acheson commented 2024-03-16 15:41:43 +01:00
Author
Member
Copy Link

Icon none is fine (better indeed).

Thanks!

Why did you made their lines deactivate by the way?

Just me being lazy in getting those captures. The numbers will be fully white.

> Icon none is fine (better indeed). Thanks! > Why did you made their lines deactivate by the way? Just me being lazy in getting those captures. The numbers will be fully white.
Harley Acheson commented 2024-03-16 18:34:54 +01:00
Author
Member
Copy Link

@dfelinto

I updated the capture in the first comment. I gave the image a bit more context so it shows more combinations of types and states.

@dfelinto I updated the capture in the first comment. I gave the image a bit more context so it shows more combinations of types and states.
Brecht Van Lommel commented 2024-03-16 19:29:40 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

The design issue mentions.

The column should be hidden by default, but toggable via the filter menu (which will need to become a menu, right now is just a toggle button).

To me it makes sense to hide this by default, though I'm not sure how important it is.

The design issue mentions. > The column should be hidden by default, but toggable via the filter menu (which will need to become a menu, right now is just a toggle button). To me it makes sense to hide this by default, though I'm not sure how important it is.
Harley Acheson changed title from UI: Outliner "File Mode" Manage User Count to WIP: UI: Outliner "File Mode" Manage User Count 2024-03-16 20:02:55 +01:00
Dalai Felinto commented 2024-03-19 02:50:50 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

I’m a bit confused about the edits on Brecht’s reply. But anyways, I think it is ok to have it hidden by default

I’m a bit confused about the edits on Brecht’s reply. But anyways, I think it is ok to have it hidden by default
Harley Acheson commented 2024-03-19 04:12:21 +01:00
Author
Member
Copy Link

I’m a bit confused about the edits on Brecht’s reply.

I'm assuming that I selected "Edit" on his comment rather than "Quote Reply", messed up his comment, then he fixed it. LOL

> I’m a bit confused about the edits on Brecht’s reply. I'm assuming that I selected "Edit" on his comment rather than "Quote Reply", messed up his comment, then he fixed it. LOL
Harley Acheson changed title from WIP: UI: Outliner "File Mode" Manage User Count to UI: Outliner "File Mode" Manage User Count 2024-03-19 20:03:22 +01:00
Harley Acheson commented 2024-03-19 20:08:43 +01:00
Author
Member
Copy Link

The column should be hidden by default, but toggable via the filter menu (which will need to become a menu, right now is just a toggle button).

Done.

image

@dfelinto - would I still be able to click (or drag even) on the shield to set/unset fake user?

Yes, dragging down multiple items in a row works as expected.

> The column should be hidden by default, but toggable via the filter menu (which will need to become a menu, right now is just a toggle button). Done. ![image](/attachments/10e7c7e7-785f-4551-b78d-2af8ace37f57) @dfelinto - would I still be able to click (or drag even) on the shield to set/unset fake user? Yes, dragging down multiple items in a row works as expected.
image.png
23 KiB
image.png
23 KiB
image.png
25 KiB
image.png image.png
Harley Acheson commented 2024-03-21 01:17:30 +01:00
Author
Member
Copy Link

@blender-bot build

@blender-bot build
Harley Acheson force-pushed OutlinerUserCount from 46cc6efb3b to 0d3a7aff5f 2024-03-21 01:59:39 +01:00 Compare
Harley Acheson added 2 commits 2024-03-28 17:16:34 +01:00
Harley Acheson commented 2024-03-28 17:22:02 +01:00
Author
Member
Copy Link

@JulianEisel @HooglyBoogly

As discussed in the UI Module this PR is updated to show user counts and fake user status in a single column. I have updated the captures and the text in the first comment.

The only part undiscussed in the meeting is that this shows the counts for Objects (this was asked for in this thread), but without a shield since we don't normally allow changing this. I was surprised that the combination works as well as it does, looks pretty nice.

@JulianEisel @HooglyBoogly As discussed in the UI Module this PR is updated to show user counts and fake user status in a single column. I have updated the captures and the text in the first comment. The only part undiscussed in the meeting is that this shows the counts for Objects (this was asked for in this thread), but without a shield since we don't normally allow changing this. I was surprised that the combination works as well as it does, looks pretty nice.
Hans Goudey commented 2024-03-28 17:24:35 +01:00
Member
Copy Link

since we don't normally allow changing this

Where is this coming from for objects in particular? It seems arbitrary to me to not show the shield for objects.

>since we don't normally allow changing this Where is this coming from for objects in particular? It seems arbitrary to me to not show the shield for objects.
Harley Acheson commented 2024-03-28 17:29:23 +01:00
Author
Member
Copy Link

Where is this coming from for objects in particular? It seems arbitrary to me to not show the shield for objects.

I'm only going by the following, from earlier in this thread:

"The "Shield" icon with a number will not work for objects, because objects do not have a fake_user" - Grigoriy Titaev

""I think objects don't show user counts in the user interface in general, so they could also not show either fake user or the user count here. But it can be useful to see it, so showing it with a different icon seems fine" - @brecht

> Where is this coming from for objects in particular? It seems arbitrary to me to not show the shield for objects. I'm only going by the following, from earlier in this thread: "The "Shield" icon with a number will not work for objects, because objects do not have a fake_user" - Grigoriy Titaev ""I think objects don't show user counts in the user interface in general, so they could also not show either fake user or the user count here. But it can be useful to see it, so showing it with a different icon seems fine" - @brecht
Hans Goudey commented 2024-03-28 17:34:37 +01:00
Member
Copy Link

The "Shield" icon with a number will not work for objects, because objects do not have a fake_user

Objects can have a fake user just like any other data-block.

I think consistency is more valuable here. I would just make all the data-block types look the same.

>The "Shield" icon with a number will not work for objects, because objects do not have a fake_user Objects can have a fake user just like any other data-block. I think consistency is more valuable here. I would just make all the data-block types look the same.
Nika Kutsniashvili commented 2024-03-28 17:34:38 +01:00
Contributor
Copy Link

Just wanted to note that objects do show user count in UI

image

Users for objects are modifiers, constraints, and custom properties that reference the object with eyedropper.

Just wanted to note that objects do show user count in UI ![image](/attachments/347b4440-555d-41cd-8c15-729b12a8bc4f) Users for objects are modifiers, constraints, and custom properties that reference the object with eyedropper.
image.png
1.3 KiB
image.png
1.3 KiB
image.png
Harley Acheson commented 2024-03-28 17:47:10 +01:00
Author
Member
Copy Link

@HooglyBoogly

Objects can have a fake user just like any other data-block.

I know I can add a fake user to objects by doing so in "Data Api" mode of the outliner. But it seems to not be considered. As in I add a "fake user" to a mesh object I can then just delete it and it seems to be removed immediately, leaving its mesh data in place with zero users

I think consistency is more valuable here. I would just make all the data-block types look the same.

I did try using a disabled shield for objects, but the difference seemed a bit subtle. Although that is how linked data would look - disabled and inactive shield.

@HooglyBoogly > Objects can have a fake user just like any other data-block. I know I can add a fake user to objects by doing so in "Data Api" mode of the outliner. But it seems to not be considered. As in I add a "fake user" to a mesh object I can then just delete it and it seems to be removed immediately, leaving its mesh data in place with zero users > I think consistency is more valuable here. I would just make all the data-block types look the same. I did try using a disabled shield for objects, but the difference seemed a bit subtle. Although that is how linked data would look - disabled and inactive shield.
Brecht Van Lommel commented 2024-03-28 19:02:32 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

I think we should keep object fake user hidden from the UI. Technically it may be possible to set through the Python API or Data API, but that's more by accident than intentional.

Unlike other datablocks, objects are immediately deleted when they have no more users. Longer term, I think we should remove the fake user setting from a bunch more datablocks and delete them immediately (see #61209). I would rather not introduce fake user for objects now when we want to get rid of it.

I think we should keep object fake user hidden from the UI. Technically it may be possible to set through the Python API or Data API, but that's more by accident than intentional. Unlike other datablocks, objects are immediately deleted when they have no more users. Longer term, I think we should remove the fake user setting from a bunch more datablocks and delete them immediately (see #61209). I would rather not introduce fake user for objects now when we want to get rid of it.
👍 1
Dalai Felinto commented 2024-03-29 12:23:05 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

@JulianEisel @HooglyBoogly

As discussed in the UI Module this PR is updated to show user counts and fake user status in a single column. I have updated the captures and the text in the first comment.

The only part undiscussed in the meeting is that this shows the counts for Objects (this was asked for in this thread), but without a shield since we don't normally allow changing this. I was surprised that the combination works as well as it does, looks pretty nice.

I went looking at the notes:

We all prefer a one-column solution so that we can use them consistently elsewhere where we don’t have the extra space. Using “empty shield” and “full shield” to indicate the addition of fake user isn’t ideal when real users are also involved but is good enough. Possibly not enough differentiating between items that have no users from ones that have multiple real users but no fake user. And when items have multiple users it can look like we are counting shields. So we have a good indication of “protection” but miss a connection to “users”. But #118691 is probably as best as we’ll get for now.

I don't see any reference to that fact that this introduces an inconsistency on how we show the data in the Orphan Data view and here. What is the plan on that regard? As we talked, I would expect such a change to happen as a separate PR, not mingled with this one.

Also I thought we had already agreed on this, no? Also IIRC the idea was indeed to not show the shield for object (as also suggested by Brecht).

I still have some thoughts regarding that shield with the number, but I was hoping we could separate this from the functionality proposed here (since again, we already do this on the Orphan Data view).

> @JulianEisel @HooglyBoogly > > As discussed in the UI Module this PR is updated to show user counts and fake user status in a single column. I have updated the captures and the text in the first comment. > > The only part undiscussed in the meeting is that this shows the counts for Objects (this was asked for in this thread), but without a shield since we don't normally allow changing this. I was surprised that the combination works as well as it does, looks pretty nice. I went looking at the notes: ``` We all prefer a one-column solution so that we can use them consistently elsewhere where we don’t have the extra space. Using “empty shield” and “full shield” to indicate the addition of fake user isn’t ideal when real users are also involved but is good enough. Possibly not enough differentiating between items that have no users from ones that have multiple real users but no fake user. And when items have multiple users it can look like we are counting shields. So we have a good indication of “protection” but miss a connection to “users”. But #118691 is probably as best as we’ll get for now. ``` I don't see any reference to that fact that this introduces an inconsistency on how we show the data in the Orphan Data view and here. What is the plan on that regard? As we talked, I would expect such a change to happen as a separate PR, not mingled with this one. Also I thought we had already agreed on this, no? Also IIRC the idea was indeed to not show the shield for object (as also suggested by Brecht). I still have some thoughts regarding that shield with the number, but I was hoping we could separate this from the functionality proposed here (since again, we already do this on the Orphan Data view).
Harley Acheson commented 2024-03-29 16:14:45 +01:00
Author
Member
Copy Link

I don't see any reference to that fact that this introduces an inconsistency on how we show the data in the Orphan Data view and here.

What is the inconsistency exactly? There are screen captures in the first comment showing how these two views look with this PR applied and they look quite consistent to me AFAICT.

What is the plan on that regard? As we talked, I would expect such a change to happen as a separate PR, not mingled with this one.

It isn't a mingling, but code sharing. This PR alters a section of code used by both views in order to keep them consistent and avoids code duplication.

Also I thought we had already agreed on this, no?

This PR currently reflects the consensus view of the UI Module following a meeting on Tuesday, March 26 2024.

Also IIRC the idea was indeed to not show the shield for object (as also suggested by Brecht).

This PR does not do so.

I still have some thoughts regarding that shield with the number, but I was hoping we could separate this from the functionality proposed here (since again, we already do this on the Orphan Data view).

That sounds interesting and I look forward to hearing your thoughts on that.

> I don't see any reference to that fact that this introduces an inconsistency on how we show the data in the Orphan Data view and here. What is the inconsistency exactly? There are screen captures in the first comment showing how these two views look with this PR applied and they look quite consistent to me AFAICT. > What is the plan on that regard? As we talked, I would expect such a change to happen as a separate PR, not mingled with this one. It isn't a mingling, but code sharing. This PR alters a section of code used by both views in order to keep them consistent and avoids code duplication. > Also I thought we had already agreed on this, no? This PR currently reflects the consensus view of the UI Module following a meeting on Tuesday, March 26 2024. > Also IIRC the idea was indeed to not show the shield for object (as also suggested by Brecht). This PR does not do so. > I still have some thoughts regarding that shield with the number, but I was hoping we could separate this from the functionality proposed here (since again, we already do this on the Orphan Data view). That sounds interesting and I look forward to hearing your thoughts on that.
Dalai Felinto commented 2024-04-02 15:00:36 +02:00
Owner
Copy Link

It isn't a mingling, but code sharing.

It mingles because now any discussion about how to represent the numbers differently get on the way of this functionality being merged with an already "tried-and-proofed' design.

What is the inconsistency exactly? There are screen captures in the first comment showing how these two views look with this PR applied and they look quite consistent to me AFAICT.

I didn't see that this patch was also changing how we show the users for Orphan data, my bad.

I still have some thoughts regarding that shield with the number, but I was hoping we could separate this from the functionality proposed here (since again, we already do this on the Orphan Data view).

That sounds interesting and I look forward to hearing your thoughts on that.

  • We are not counting fake users so I find strange to see the numbers on the shields.
  • I think the object count should be displayed the same way as the other numbers (even if with a different number):

image

I think this approach is trying to aim at a very dense amount of information to save space (the 2nd column). But failing (imho) to do so in a clear way.

But honestly I think I'm repeating myself here and I don't know if I have anything else to offer here since I haven't volunteered any design either. If the UI team wants to take ownership of this project, then please go ahead and change/commit to your heart content.

> It isn't a mingling, but code sharing. It mingles because now any discussion about how to represent the numbers differently get on the way of this functionality being merged with an already "tried-and-proofed' design. > What is the inconsistency exactly? There are screen captures in the first comment showing how these two views look with this PR applied and they look quite consistent to me AFAICT. I didn't see that this patch was also changing how we show the users for Orphan data, my bad. >> I still have some thoughts regarding that shield with the number, but I was hoping we could separate this from the functionality proposed here (since again, we already do this on the Orphan Data view). > That sounds interesting and I look forward to hearing your thoughts on that. * We are not counting fake users so I find strange to see the numbers on the shields. * I think the object count should be displayed the same way as the other numbers (even if with a different number): ![image](/attachments/5efc9fd7-bffc-480b-aec9-31c780c3ac63) --- I think this approach is trying to aim at a very dense amount of information to save space (the 2nd column). But failing (imho) to do so in a clear way. But honestly I think I'm repeating myself here and I don't know if I have anything else to offer here since I haven't volunteered any design either. If the UI team wants to take ownership of this project, then please go ahead and change/commit to your heart content.
image.png
5.4 KiB
Harley Acheson added 2 commits 2024-04-18 17:55:37 +02:00
Harley Acheson added 1 commit 2024-04-18 18:03:46 +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
db1e9de86e Small changes.
Harley Acheson commented 2024-04-18 18:15:36 +02:00
Author
Member
Copy Link

@JulianEisel @HooglyBoogly @pablovazquez

This PR is updated to reflect the consensus of the last UI meeting:

  • Shows the user count column for "Blender File" mode always, so no user preference to show/hide it.
  • State with no users and without fake users shows the "0" in red.

The captures in the first comment have been updated.

@JulianEisel @HooglyBoogly @pablovazquez This PR is updated to reflect the consensus of the last UI meeting: * Shows the user count column for "Blender File" mode always, so no user preference to show/hide it. * State with no users and without fake users shows the "0" in red. The captures in the first comment have been updated.
Harley Acheson commented 2024-04-18 18:34:29 +02:00
Author
Member
Copy Link

@blender-bot build

@blender-bot build
Harley Acheson added 2 commits 2024-04-18 18:42:07 +02:00
Hans Goudey approved these changes 2024-04-19 15:39:03 +02:00
source/blender/editors/include/UI_interface_icons.hh
@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ struct IconFile {
struct IconTextOverlay {
char text[5];
uchar color[4] = {0};
Hans Goudey commented 2024-04-19 15:39:00 +02:00
Member
Copy Link

I think the zero initialization here is unnecessary?

I think the zero initialization here is unnecessary?
Harley Acheson commented 2024-04-20 00:52:33 +02:00
Author
Member
Copy Link

Weirdly it is. At least with my compiler...

uiBut initializes this like this:

IconTextOverlay icon_overlay_text = {};

And I would expect with C++17 that the above would recursively initialize all parts of this to zero. But instead I see the color value with initial 204 junk value instead. I have only managed to start off with zeros by initializing in the struct itself.

Weirdly it is. At least with my compiler... uiBut initializes this like this: ``` IconTextOverlay icon_overlay_text = {}; ``` And I would expect with C++17 that the above would recursively initialize all parts of this to zero. But instead I see the color value with initial 204 junk value instead. I have only managed to start off with zeros by initializing in the struct itself.
Hans Goudey commented 2024-04-20 01:05:46 +02:00
Member
Copy Link

Good to know! No big deal, thanks for checking.

Good to know! No big deal, thanks for checking.
source/blender/editors/space_outliner/outliner_draw.cc Outdated
@ -1798,0 +1827,4 @@
}
else {
UI_but_func_set(bt, restrictbutton_id_user_toggle, id, nullptr);
UI_but_flag_enable(bt, UI_BUT_DRAG_LOCK);
Hans Goudey commented 2024-04-19 15:38:04 +02:00
Member
Copy Link

Could you add a comment about why UI_BUT_DRAG_LOCK is set here? I think it was discussed in the PR but I'm not sure myself here now.

Could you add a comment about why `UI_BUT_DRAG_LOCK` is set here? I think it was discussed in the PR but I'm not sure myself here now.
Harley Acheson commented 2024-04-20 01:07:30 +02:00
Author
Member
Copy Link

I'm not adding this flag here, it is also set here in existing code.

But I wasn't sure what it did to be honest until now. It does not enable you to drag down a column of items to set/unset them all at once easily - that is allowed regardless.

What this adds is it allows you to drag inaccurately once dragging starts. Without this flag you must stay within the bounds of the checkboxes, but with it you can veer off quite a bit and it will toggle them. Nice feature.

Will add a comment.

I'm not adding this flag here, it is also set here in existing code. But I wasn't sure what it did to be honest until now. It does not enable you to drag down a column of items to set/unset them all at once easily - that is allowed regardless. What this adds is it allows you to drag **inaccurately** once dragging starts. Without this flag you must stay within the bounds of the checkboxes, but with it you can veer off quite a bit and it will toggle them. Nice feature. Will add a comment.
Grigoriy Titaev commented 2024-04-19 17:58:16 +02:00
First-time contributor
Copy Link

Numbers with shields and without shields look different.
This may be confusing, some users may think that different numbers (small and big) mean different things.

Maybe for a consistent look making the numbers without shield the same as the numbers with shields.
Small numbers in the lower right corner, with empty icons:
numbers.png

Numbers with shields and without shields look different. This may be confusing, some users may think that different numbers (small and big) mean different things. Maybe for a consistent look making the numbers without shield the same as the numbers with shields. Small numbers in the lower right corner, with empty icons: ![numbers.png](/attachments/be909b69-b510-4b5b-8ef2-c2bcac793af9)
numbers.png
34 KiB
👍 1
Harley Acheson added 2 commits 2024-04-20 01:11:03 +02:00
buildbot/vexp-code-patch-darwin-x86_64 Build done. Details
buildbot/vexp-code-patch-linux-x86_64 Build done. Details
buildbot/vexp-code-patch-lint 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
f5530d0d8f Comment changes
Harley Acheson commented 2024-04-20 01:19:52 +02:00
Author
Member
Copy Link

@blender-bot build

@blender-bot build
Harley Acheson merged commit d8f6ae7919 into main 2024-04-20 02:50:21 +02:00
Harley Acheson deleted branch OutlinerUserCount 2024-04-20 02:50:24 +02:00
Grigoriy Titaev commented 2024-04-21 16:22:53 +02:00
First-time contributor
Copy Link

Blender 4.2.0 Alpha (2024-04-21)

The number and tooltip only change when the cursor moves outside the icon, not after clicking.

User Count.png

Blender 4.2.0 Alpha (2024-04-21) The number and tooltip only change when the cursor moves outside the icon, not after clicking. ![User Count.png](/attachments/a00e26e6-dc95-4252-9423-fb806b1e6291)
User Count.png
95 KiB
Pratik Borhade commented 2024-04-22 05:51:38 +02:00
Member
Copy Link

@gtitaev hi, can you make a report for that?

@gtitaev hi, can you make a report for that?
Grigoriy Titaev commented 2024-04-22 08:38:44 +02:00
First-time contributor
Copy Link

@PratikPB2123, done: #120913

@PratikPB2123, done: https://projects.blender.org/blender/blender/issues/120913
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No reviewers
Pablo Vazquez
Hans Goudey
Labels
Clear labels   
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
This issue affects/is about backward or forward 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
Issues relating to Wayland windowing support.

  
Interest
Workbench

  
Interest: X11

Issues relating to Xorg/X11 support.

  
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
Issues relating to security: https://wiki.blender.org/wiki/Process/Vulnerability_Reports

  
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 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
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
User Interface
Assignees
Clear assignees
No Assignees
9 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#118691
No description provided.
Delete Branch "Harley/blender:OutlinerUserCount"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?