action editor in dope sheet cant be deleted after created new one #45535

New Issue

yellow foxz · 2015-07-23T05:45:53+02:00

yellow foxz commented

2015-07-23 05:45:53 +02:00

System Information
Operating system and graphics card

Blender Version
2.75a hashc27589e

Short description of error
action dope sheet cant be deleted after created new one

Exact steps for others to reproduce the error
1 open blender and add object in the scene
2 change to dope sheet editor
3 select action editor mode in dope sheet
4 click new
5 click "+" to create new one, must click multiple times
6 delete the previous one or rest of them
this file>> bug Action dope sheet.rar

**System Information** Operating system and graphics card **Blender Version** 2.75a hashc27589e **Short description of error** action dope sheet cant be deleted after created new one **Exact steps for others to reproduce the error** 1 open blender and add object in the scene 2 change to dope sheet editor 3 select action editor mode in dope sheet 4 click new 5 click "+" to create new one, must click multiple times 6 delete the previous one or rest of them this file>> [bug Action dope sheet.rar](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F211774/bug_Action_dope_sheet.rar)

yellow foxz commented

2015-07-23 05:45:53 +02:00

Changed status to: 'Open'

yellow foxz commented

2015-07-23 05:45:53 +02:00

Added subscriber: @yellowfoxz

blender-admin commented

2015-07-23 05:45:53 +02:00

#45554 was marked as duplicate of this issue

Julian Eisel commented

2015-07-25 15:24:21 +02:00

Added subscriber: @JulianEisel

Julian Eisel commented

2015-07-25 15:24:22 +02:00

Seems like this is the same issue as reported in #45554 - merging

Julian Eisel commented

2015-07-25 15:24:32 +02:00

Added subscriber: @motorsep

Alexander Zubov commented

2015-07-25 16:00:15 +02:00

Can developers confirm the bug or is it going to be one of those who no one wants to touch with a long stick? (like it was with losing work if user wasn't manually assigned a few version back)

Alexander Zubov commented

2015-07-25 17:06:44 +02:00

New development about this bug. Apparently, if Action is duplicated, but user is never assigned to it, it can be deleted by deleting it from NLA Editor (it's still backward, as there is no reason not to be able to remove Actions from Action Editor). Here is a video showing it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3H_RDnDf-g

However, if I click on F next to the Action I will need to delete, it's a done deal - it's there to stay no matter what I do.

New development about this bug. Apparently, if Action is duplicated, but user is never assigned to it, it can be deleted by deleting it from NLA Editor (it's still backward, as there is no reason not to be able to remove **Actions** from **Action Editor**). Here is a video showing it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3H_RDnDf-g However, if I click on F next to the Action I will need to delete, it's a done deal - it's there to stay no matter what I do.

Alexander Zubov commented

2015-07-25 18:07:17 +02:00

It gets even weirder - the user who posted video showing how Actions that never got F pressed can be removed, can remove Actions even after having users on them. I followed his instructions to the tee, but when I save, users get assigned to the actions automatically:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtGTbqgnNJs

It gets even weirder - the user who posted video showing how Actions that never got F pressed can be removed, can remove Actions even after having users on them. I followed his instructions to the tee, but when I save, users get assigned to the actions automatically: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtGTbqgnNJs

Julian Eisel commented

2015-07-25 18:14:07 +02:00

Added subscriber: @JoshuaLeung

Julian Eisel commented

2015-07-25 18:14:07 +02:00

Can developers confirm the bug or is it going to be one of those who no one wants to touch with a long stick? (like it was with losing work if user wasn't manually assigned a few version back)

Such a statement is complete rubbish and I hope you know that. If an issue isn't fixed within a reasonable amount of time than because it's not easy to fix it. The example you mention, possible loss of actions, was broken by design - a design that is deeply implemented into Blender's data structure. AFAIK it's still not fixed (which would require redesigning Blender's datablock system), but there were tools implemented that help prevent data loss.

Anyway... this is not a forum -> back to topic...

@JoshuaLeung, could you have a look? Not really an area I'm familiar with ;)

> Can developers confirm the bug or is it going to be one of those who no one wants to touch with a long stick? (like it was with losing work if user wasn't manually assigned a few version back) Such a statement is complete rubbish and I hope you know that. If an issue isn't fixed within a reasonable amount of time than because it's not easy to fix it. The example you mention, possible loss of actions, was broken by design - a design that is deeply implemented into Blender's data structure. AFAIK it's still not fixed (which would require redesigning Blender's datablock system), but there were tools implemented that help prevent data loss. Anyway... this is not a forum -> back to topic... @JoshuaLeung, could you have a look? Not really an area I'm familiar with ;)

Alexander Zubov commented

2015-07-25 18:17:50 +02:00

In #45535#323859, @JulianEisel wrote:
Such a statement is complete rubbish and I hope you know that. If an issue isn't fixed within a reasonable amount of time than because it's not easy to fix it. The example you mention, possible loss of actions, was broken by design - a design that is deeply implemented into Blender's data structure. AFAIK it's still not fixed (which would require redesigning Blender's datablock system), but there were tools implemented that help prevent data loss.

My bad, sorry.

I am wondering if there are user settings that might interfere with functionality (and thus some users don't have an issue and some do). I also wonder why not to just leave Shift +- [x] be as it worked for everyone as a good solution.

> In #45535#323859, @JulianEisel wrote: > Such a statement is complete rubbish and I hope you know that. If an issue isn't fixed within a reasonable amount of time than because it's not easy to fix it. The example you mention, possible loss of actions, was broken by design - a design that is deeply implemented into Blender's data structure. AFAIK it's still not fixed (which would require redesigning Blender's datablock system), but there were tools implemented that help prevent data loss. My bad, sorry. I am wondering if there are user settings that might interfere with functionality (and thus some users don't have an issue and some do). I also wonder why not to just leave Shift +- [x] be as it worked for everyone as a good solution.

ronan ducluzeau commented

2015-08-03 15:01:06 +02:00

Added subscriber: @zeauro

ronan ducluzeau commented

2015-08-03 15:01:07 +02:00

It looks like duplication was thought to be done only once.
If you get rid of action active in Action Editor (by pushing it, stashing it, deleting it or replacing it by another), there is no stashing in NLA at new action creation.

It looks like duplication was thought to be done only once. If you get rid of action active in Action Editor (by pushing it, stashing it, deleting it or replacing it by another), there is no stashing in NLA at new action creation.

Joshua Leung commented

2015-08-03 16:24:40 +02:00

There are several things going on here, so I'll go through them one by one to avoid confusing things further.

yellowfox's file

From the sound of things, it looks like this is just a case of not realising that we now hang on to all actions in the NLA.

Z3H_RDnDf-g

It looks like everything is behaving exactly as designed. The action stashing behaviours were put in place specifically to address complaints by various users that they were finding it far too easy to accidentally lose actions. In particular, the biggest complaints related to:

Losing an action when starting work on the next one
1a) The user firstly closes/unlinks the existing action, then presses "Add New" or simply inserts some new keyframes --> A "clean" start
1b) The user simply presses the "Add New" with the old action still active --> Easier/Lazier way of 1a OR a simple way to preserve an earlier version of the action

 In both of these cases, there are no problems if *something* causes the usercount of the old action to remain non-zero once it has been displaced to make way for the newly created action. A Fake User forcibly gives the action a user (effectively pinning it on a global/file level), whereas Stashing in the NLA means that the Object/Mesh/Material/etc. still has some link to the actions which can be used to affect it (benefits of doing this are that renaming bones or doing other rig changes can get applied to the actions as well).

From many of the threads discussing these things, one of the notions that came up repeatedly was that when you create actions, those are tied to the objects/materials/etc. that you created those actions for. That is, Blender should know that Actions 1, 2, 3 are for Object A, while Actions 4, 5, 6 are for Object B. The action stashing workflow seemed to be a good way to make Blender's behaviour match up with semantic expectations.

Losing an action when switching between different actions while working on a new one. (Or alternatively, working on multiple actions at once).

The user already has some actions created (A1, A2, A3). They then create a new action (A4), and lay down 1+ keyframes, realise that they need to check on a previous action, then use the Browse button to switch to a previous action (A2/A3).   After checking that previous action, they jump back to the new action they were creating (A4) and carry on.  However, they may be interrupted at any stage of this process, and may end up saving the file with A2/A3 active, but without having done anything to preserve A4 yet.

"Closing" an action after checking on it

 As part of 2), the user may get distracted after A2, and want to start creating a new action (A5) from scratch (instead of using A2 as a base, or continuing to work on A4 for the time being). So, instead, they "unlink/close" A2.

In this case, we clearly don't want A2 to suddenly have nothing referring to it anymore.

Now, were some of these methods overly heavy-handed? Perhaps...

There is an inherent conflict/tradeoff here between protecting user data and making it hard/cumbersome to get rid of data you don't want anymore. This arises because the computer ultimately cannot possibly know what your intentions are.

With great power comes great responsibility: At one end of the spectrum, you put the user in full control. That is, the computer does as you tell it to - it will save when you tell it to save, and it will not attempt to retain things that you've told it you currently don't have a use for.
On the other end of the spectrum, if you apply too many safely precautions against the user shooting themselves in the foot, it becomes a cumbersome process to get anything done, as now users have to fight against the protections designed to keep them from doing anything unintentionally. (Note: Even something as passive as a warning prompt in one context can be a massive PITA for another)

Given the feedback that was trickling in - i.e. "data shouldn't ever be lost", "users should tell the software when they want something deleted" - the available evidence pointed to a need to be conservative/cautious here and lean towards saving things more often.

mtGTbqgnNJs

OK, so if I understand correctly, the problem here is that the first three actions (named "0", "0.0001", "0.0002") which are shown as initially having 0 users before saving, are shown as having a Fake User after saving?

What is the exact sequence of steps taken to do reproduce this from a clean file? This shouldn't be happening, but I haven't found a way to reproduce this yet.

Shift X

OK, I guess it's reasonable to make some tweaks here so that if shift-clicking on the X will do the following:

Unlink the action from the active-action slot (i.e. the standard "delete" behaviour)
Remove fake user
Remove the NLA strip used to stash that action - It will ONLY remove the strip if it's used for stashing (i.e. not if it is actually used in the NLA normally).

Is this what you'd expect?

There are several things going on here, so I'll go through them one by one to avoid confusing things further. # yellowfox's file From the sound of things, it looks like this is just a case of not realising that we now hang on to all actions in the NLA. # Z3H_RDnDf-g It looks like everything is behaving exactly as designed. The action stashing behaviours were put in place specifically to address complaints by various users that they were finding it far too easy to accidentally lose actions. In particular, the biggest complaints related to: 1) Losing an action when starting work on the next one 1a) The user firstly closes/unlinks the existing action, then presses "Add New" or simply inserts some new keyframes --> A "clean" start 1b) The user simply presses the "Add New" with the old action still active --> Easier/Lazier way of 1a OR a simple way to preserve an earlier version of the action ``` In both of these cases, there are no problems if *something* causes the usercount of the old action to remain non-zero once it has been displaced to make way for the newly created action. A Fake User forcibly gives the action a user (effectively pinning it on a global/file level), whereas Stashing in the NLA means that the Object/Mesh/Material/etc. still has some link to the actions which can be used to affect it (benefits of doing this are that renaming bones or doing other rig changes can get applied to the actions as well). ``` ``` From many of the threads discussing these things, one of the notions that came up repeatedly was that when you create actions, those are tied to the objects/materials/etc. that you created those actions for. That is, Blender should know that Actions 1, 2, 3 are for Object A, while Actions 4, 5, 6 are for Object B. The action stashing workflow seemed to be a good way to make Blender's behaviour match up with semantic expectations. ``` 2) Losing an action when switching between different actions while working on a new one. (Or alternatively, working on multiple actions at once). ``` The user already has some actions created (A1, A2, A3). They then create a new action (A4), and lay down 1+ keyframes, realise that they need to check on a previous action, then use the Browse button to switch to a previous action (A2/A3). After checking that previous action, they jump back to the new action they were creating (A4) and carry on. However, they may be interrupted at any stage of this process, and may end up saving the file with A2/A3 active, but without having done anything to preserve A4 yet. ``` 3) "Closing" an action after checking on it ``` As part of 2), the user may get distracted after A2, and want to start creating a new action (A5) from scratch (instead of using A2 as a base, or continuing to work on A4 for the time being). So, instead, they "unlink/close" A2. ``` ``` In this case, we clearly don't want A2 to suddenly have nothing referring to it anymore. ``` Now, were some of these methods overly heavy-handed? Perhaps... There is an inherent conflict/tradeoff here between protecting user data and making it hard/cumbersome to get rid of data you don't want anymore. This arises because the computer ultimately cannot possibly know what your intentions are. * With great power comes great responsibility: At one end of the spectrum, you put the user in full control. That is, the computer does as you tell it to - it will save when you tell it to save, and it will not attempt to retain things that you've told it you currently don't have a use for. * On the other end of the spectrum, if you apply too many safely precautions against the user shooting themselves in the foot, it becomes a cumbersome process to get anything done, as now users have to fight against the protections designed to keep them from doing anything unintentionally. (Note: Even something as passive as a warning prompt in one context can be a massive PITA for another) Given the feedback that was trickling in - i.e. "data shouldn't ever be lost", "users should tell the software when they want something deleted" - the available evidence pointed to a need to be conservative/cautious here and lean towards saving things more often. # mtGTbqgnNJs OK, so if I understand correctly, the problem here is that the first three actions (named "0", "0.0001", "0.0002") which are shown as initially having 0 users before saving, are shown as having a Fake User after saving? What is the exact sequence of steps taken to do reproduce this from a clean file? This shouldn't be happening, but I haven't found a way to reproduce this yet. # Shift X OK, I guess it's reasonable to make some tweaks here so that if shift-clicking on the X will do the following: * Unlink the action from the active-action slot (i.e. the standard "delete" behaviour) * Remove fake user * Remove the NLA strip used to stash that action - It will ONLY remove the strip if it's used for stashing (i.e. not if it is actually used in the NLA normally). Is this what you'd expect?

Alexander Zubov commented

2015-08-04 01:46:03 +02:00

So I tried making simple scene from scratch to reproduce the bug, and I easily reproduced it.

Blend file: action_bug_test.blend

All I did was:

Created a mesh
Created Armature
Named root bone "origin", made a chain of 3 bones, parent the chain to "origin"
Parented mesh to Armature with autoweights
Split view and open Action Editor
Select all bones in Pose mode, create a new Action, name it "init" key LocRot on frame 1, and then on frame 2
Click F button on "init" Action
Click + to create a new Action, rename it, click F
Make a simple animation
Click + to create new Action, then F
Do #10 two more times
Save .blend file
Quit Blender and restart it
Open blend file from #12
Click F to remove users on Action created in #10 and #11
Open NLA Editor
Delete the NDA strips for Actions from #10 and #11 (or you can kill the whole thing in NLA)
Save again
Observer unwanted Actions to have users again.

I never had issues with 2.74 - Shift + X button deleted Action, and aster saving/restarting Blender it was gone.

So I tried making simple scene from scratch to reproduce the bug, and I easily reproduced it. Blend file: [action_bug_test.blend](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F218568/action_bug_test.blend) All I did was: 1. Created a mesh 2. Created Armature 3. Named root bone "origin", made a chain of 3 bones, parent the chain to "origin" 4. Parented mesh to Armature with autoweights 5. Split view and open Action Editor 6. Select all bones in Pose mode, create a new Action, name it "init" key LocRot on frame 1, and then on frame 2 7. Click F button on "init" Action 8. Click + to create a new Action, rename it, click F 9. Make a simple animation 10. Click + to create new Action, then F 11. Do #10 two more times 12. Save .blend file 13. Quit Blender and restart it 14. Open blend file from #12 15. Click F to remove users on Action created in #10 and #11 16. Open NLA Editor 17. Delete the NDA strips for Actions from #10 and #11 (or you can kill the whole thing in NLA) 18. Save again 19. Observer unwanted Actions to have users again. I never had issues with 2.74 - Shift + X button deleted Action, and aster saving/restarting Blender it was gone.

Joshua Leung commented

2015-08-06 16:05:00 +02:00

Unfortunately, I still can't reproduce any errors here. The actions in question are getting deleted as expected here after following the steps you've listed. Does this still happen in current master/buildbot builds?

I'll keep looking into this though, and will be making the Shift-X improvements proposed above.

Unfortunately, I still can't reproduce any errors here. The actions in question are getting deleted as expected here after following the steps you've listed. Does this still happen in current master/buildbot builds? I'll keep looking into this though, and will be making the Shift-X improvements proposed above.

Sergey Sharybin commented

2016-07-29 12:25:54 +02:00

Added subscriber: @Sergey

Sergey Sharybin commented

2016-07-29 12:25:54 +02:00

Changed status from 'Open' to: 'Archived'

Sergey Sharybin closed this issue

2016-07-29 12:25:54 +02:00

Sergey Sharybin self-assigned this 2016-07-29 12:25:54 +02:00

Sergey Sharybin commented

2016-07-29 12:25:54 +02:00

First of all, no feedback on Joshua's request to test with latest builds. Since there are high possibility of the issue was already fixed it's crucial to test newest builds. So archiving for until it is confirmed the issue can be reproduced with latest builds from builder.blender.org.

P.S. Also seems Joshua made all planned modifications in the code now.

First of all, no feedback on Joshua's request to test with latest builds. Since there are high possibility of the issue was already fixed it's crucial to test newest builds. So archiving for until it is confirmed the issue can be reproduced with latest builds from builder.blender.org. P.S. Also seems Joshua made all planned modifications in the code now.

Sign in to join this conversation.

7 Participants

Notifications

Due Date

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: blender/blender#45535

Download

What's New

Blender Studio

Manual

Developers Blog

Documentation

Benchmark

Blender Conference

Development Fund

One-time Donations

action editor in dope sheet cant be deleted after created new one #45535

yellowfox's file

Z3H_RDnDf-g

mtGTbqgnNJs

Shift X