Can't resize selected node #64693

New Issue

Michael Soluyanov · 2019-05-16T10:20:26+02:00

Michael Soluyanov commented

2019-05-16 10:20:26 +02:00

System Information
Operating system: Linux-4.15.0-47-generic-x86_64-with-debian-buster-sid 64 Bits
Graphics card: GeForce GTX 1070/PCIe/SSE2 NVIDIA Corporation 4.5.0 NVIDIA 390.116

Blender Version
Broken: version: 2.80 (sub 64), branch: blender2.7, commit date: 2019-05-15 21:16, hash: 989d854385
Broken: version: 2.80 (sub 64), branch: blender2.7, commit date: 2019-05-14 22:59, hash: 4e46ed37fc
Worked: version: 2.80 (sub 64), branch: blender2.7, commit date: 2019-05-13 22:40, hash: f070bdd7c9

Short description of error
Can't resize selected node

Exact steps for others to reproduce the error

Select any node
Try to resize it - it will move instead of resizing
If node isn't selected - it will resize

**System Information** Operating system: Linux-4.15.0-47-generic-x86_64-with-debian-buster-sid 64 Bits Graphics card: GeForce GTX 1070/PCIe/SSE2 NVIDIA Corporation 4.5.0 NVIDIA 390.116 **Blender Version** Broken: version: 2.80 (sub 64), branch: blender2.7, commit date: 2019-05-15 21:16, hash: `989d854385` Broken: version: 2.80 (sub 64), branch: blender2.7, commit date: 2019-05-14 22:59, hash: `4e46ed37fc` Worked: version: 2.80 (sub 64), branch: blender2.7, commit date: 2019-05-13 22:40, hash: `f070bdd7c9` **Short description of error** Can't resize selected node **Exact steps for others to reproduce the error** 1. Select any node 2. Try to resize it - it will move instead of resizing ![Peek 2019-05-16 11-15.gif](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F7040550/Peek_2019-05-16_11-15.gif) 3. If node isn't selected - it will resize

Michael Soluyanov commented

2019-05-16 10:20:26 +02:00

Added subscriber: @crantisz

blender-admin commented

2019-05-16 10:20:26 +02:00

#64939 was marked as duplicate of this issue

blender-admin commented

2019-05-16 10:20:26 +02:00

#64935 was marked as duplicate of this issue

blender-admin commented

2019-05-16 10:20:26 +02:00

#64880 was marked as duplicate of this issue

blender-admin commented

2019-05-16 10:20:26 +02:00

#64754 was marked as duplicate of this issue

blender-admin commented

2019-05-16 10:20:26 +02:00

#64696 was marked as duplicate of this issue

George Vogiatzis commented

2019-05-16 11:21:03 +02:00

Added subscriber: @irfancelik

George Vogiatzis commented

2019-05-16 11:34:05 +02:00

Added subscriber: @Gvgeo-1

Bastien Montagne was assigned by George Vogiatzis

2019-05-16 11:34:05 +02:00

George Vogiatzis commented

2019-05-16 11:34:05 +02:00

Must be af088c2640 change.

Must be af088c2640 change.

Bastien Montagne commented

2019-05-16 14:06:12 +02:00

Added subscribers: @WilliamReynish, @ideasman42, @brecht

Bastien Montagne commented

2019-05-16 14:06:12 +02:00

This is same exact problem as in #64660… that one could be worked-around with a rather cheap trick, but current one am not sure…

This raises some more general design questions/issues in fact:

Is it expected that when an operator returns RUNNING_MODAL, event is always considered as handled, even when it also returns PASSTRHOUGH? Could we even have two or more modal ops running at the same time? @ideasman42?
Do we need to think about a better control over order in which ops are checked for? Or be much stricter in their polling functions?

Question 2 is real root of the issue here, as node select, being a tool, gets precedence over all more specific/constrained operators (like link or resize, which both can only be triggered on much smaller 'active' areas than node selection itself). We can keep adding exceptions to select to abort in case we are also on node's border, but then this is sort of endless, terribly brittle, and prone to fail in more and more corner cases and special cases. I’d rather see a way developed to properly control priorities of evaluation of ops, think we'll need this more and more if we want to keep adding more and more things to a single event (left mouse click in that case).

@brecht, @ideasman42, @WilliamReynish this is kind of fundamental issue in current design imho… If you want lots of operators to use same shortcuts as init trigger, relying on PASSTHROUGH usage everywhere is really not the best way to go. If we don’t want to/can’t add a proper prioritization system, then I think we should at least review all those ops, to get some much, much stricter polling functions, instead of adding all kind of exceptions in their exec code?

This is same exact problem as in #64660… that one could be worked-around with a rather cheap trick, but current one am not sure… This raises some more general design questions/issues in fact: - Is it expected that when an operator returns RUNNING_MODAL, event is always considered as handled, even when it also returns PASSTRHOUGH? Could we even have two or more modal ops running at the same time? @ideasman42? - Do we need to think about a better control over order in which ops are checked for? Or be much stricter in their polling functions? Question 2 is real root of the issue here, as node select, being a tool, gets precedence over all more specific/constrained operators (like link or resize, which both can only be triggered on much smaller 'active' areas than node selection itself). We can keep adding exceptions to select to abort in case we are also on node's border, but then this is sort of endless, terribly brittle, and prone to fail in more and more corner cases and special cases. I’d rather see a way developed to properly control priorities of evaluation of ops, think we'll need this more and more if we want to keep adding more and more things to a single event (left mouse click in that case). @brecht, @ideasman42, @WilliamReynish this is kind of fundamental issue in current design imho… If you want lots of operators to use same shortcuts as init trigger, relying on PASSTHROUGH usage everywhere is really not the best way to go. If we don’t want to/can’t add a proper prioritization system, then I think we should at least review all those ops, to get some much, much stricter polling functions, instead of adding all kind of exceptions in their exec code?

Richard Antalik commented

2019-05-16 15:06:45 +02:00

Added subscriber: @iss

Brecht Van Lommel commented

2019-05-16 15:14:29 +02:00

It should be possible to pass through events from modal(). Other modal operators just seem to return PASSTHROUGH without RUNNING_MODAL. The latter only really needs to be returned from invoke().

As for order, I think resize should be ahead of selection in the keymap and it's not now? That's generally how I would expect things to work, operators in the right order in the keymap and passing through to the next one if not used.

It should be possible to pass through events from `modal()`. Other modal operators just seem to return `PASSTHROUGH` without `RUNNING_MODAL`. The latter only really needs to be returned from `invoke()`. As for order, I think resize should be ahead of selection in the keymap and it's not now? That's generally how I would expect things to work, operators in the right order in the keymap and passing through to the next one if not used.

Bastien Montagne commented

2019-05-16 16:09:54 +02:00

Thing is, we also need passthrough from initial invoke call, since it’s init event here that is shared between ops. But we'd rather not have select ran at all if some other, more specific op can run instead, else getting rid of select running code (getting out of modal loop) won't be exactly easy.

And select being a tool, it is tried well before any other ops from regular keymap., at least from what I can see in --debug-handlers reports…

Thing is, we also need passthrough from initial invoke call, since it’s init event here that is shared between ops. But we'd rather not have select ran at all if some other, more specific op can run instead, else getting rid of select running code (getting out of modal loop) won't be exactly easy. And select being a tool, it is tried well before any other ops from regular keymap., at least from what I can see in `--debug-handlers` reports…

George Vogiatzis commented

2019-05-16 17:12:09 +02:00

This comment was removed by @Gvgeo-1

*This comment was removed by @Gvgeo-1*

Philipp Oeser commented

2019-05-17 14:34:32 +02:00

Added subscriber: @Oxer-1

Bastien Montagne commented

2019-05-20 14:29:40 +02:00

@ideasman42 assigning to you to ensure you see that task, we really need input from event master here. Why do we break event handling when operator returns (OPERATOR_PASS_THROUGH | OPERATOR_RUNNING_MODAL), at the end of wm_handler_operator_call()? This seems the opposite of PASSTHROUGH idea to me.

Can’t see how we can do what we want to do here, currently… We need to keep events being processed after that initial call to invoke() has returned that combination of flags.

Also, raising priority since that should be fixed asap imho.

In lack of a better idea, I’ll go rampaging poll() func of the select op to return false in case mouse is over a socket or node border, in a few days…

@ideasman42 assigning to you to ensure you see that task, we really need input from event master here. Why do we break event handling when operator returns `(OPERATOR_PASS_THROUGH | OPERATOR_RUNNING_MODAL)`, at the end of `wm_handler_operator_call()`? This seems the opposite of PASSTHROUGH idea to me. Can’t see how we can do what we want to do here, currently… We need to keep events being processed after that initial call to `invoke()` has returned that combination of flags. Also, raising priority since that should be fixed asap imho. In lack of a better idea, I’ll go rampaging `poll()` func of the select op to return false in case mouse is over a socket or node border, in a few days…

Brecht Van Lommel commented

2019-05-20 14:50:20 +02:00

Added subscriber: @nacioss

Bastien Montagne removed their assignment 2019-05-20 16:21:54 +02:00

Campbell Barton was assigned by Bastien Montagne

2019-05-20 16:21:54 +02:00

Bastien Montagne commented

2019-05-20 16:21:54 +02:00

Added subscriber: @mont29

William Reynish commented

2019-05-21 11:13:39 +02:00

Closed as duplicate of #64935

William Reynish closed this issue

2019-05-21 11:13:39 +02:00

William Reynish commented

2019-05-21 11:14:43 +02:00

Changed status from 'Duplicate' to: 'Open'

William Reynish reopened this issue

2019-05-21 11:14:43 +02:00

William Reynish commented

2019-05-21 11:15:23 +02:00

Added subscriber: @nobi08

Philipp Oeser commented

2019-05-21 12:51:38 +02:00

Added subscriber: @JoshuaZacharias

Michael Soluyanov commented

2019-05-21 20:14:11 +02:00

Maybe related: Reroute dots can't be selected using standard select tool, only via box, lasso circle selcect tools.

Maybe related: Reroute dots can't be selected using standard select tool, only via box, lasso circle selcect tools. ![Снимок экрана от 2019-05-21 21-12-01.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F7058742/Снимок_экрана_от_2019-05-21_21-12-01.png)

blender-admin commented

2019-05-23 16:24:46 +02:00

This issue was referenced by fd3f75a02c

This issue was referenced by fd3f75a02cf9c40c7ba0d15f2c55188b18662a93

Bastien Montagne commented

2019-05-23 16:37:38 +02:00

Changed status from 'Open' to: 'Resolved'

Bastien Montagne closed this issue

2019-05-23 16:37:38 +02:00

Sign in to join this conversation.

No Label

Download

What's New

Blender Studio

Manual

Developers Blog

Documentation

Benchmark

Blender Conference

Development Fund

One-time Donations

Can't resize selected node #64693