Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Added dirty propagation test for ContextVariables #1230

Conversation

davidsminor
Copy link
Contributor

Two things seem to be failing here. To start with, it looks like tweaking a value on a ContextVariables node doesn't signal dirtiness properly, because ContextVariables::affects() isn't implemented correctly.

The other problem seems wider ranging: adding a member to/removing it from the "variables" plug on a ContextVariables node (and similar nodes) should trigger a propagateDirtiness and dirty its output, seeing as it affects its value. This seems problematic though - I tried calling propagateDirtiness( this ) in CompoundPlug::childAddedOrRemoved(), but compound plugs don't trigger calls to affects(), so that was the end of that. This is probably affecting other nodes with compound plugs like GafferScene::CustomAttributes too.

Two things seem to be failing here. To start with, it looks like tweaking a value on a ContextVariables node doesn't signal dirtiness properly, because ContextVariables<BaseType>::affects() isn't implemented correctly.
The other problem seems wider ranging: adding a member to/removing it from the "variables" plug on a ContextVariables node (and similar nodes) should trigger a propagateDirtiness and dirty its output, seeing as it affects its value. This seems problematic though - I tried calling propagateDirtiness( this ) in CompoundPlug::childAddedOrRemoved(), but compound plugs don't trigger calls to affects(), so that was the end of that. This is probably affecting other nodes with compound plugs like GafferScene::CustomAttributes too.
@johnhaddon johnhaddon added the pr-revision PRs that should not be merged because a Reviewer has requested changes. label Mar 12, 2015
@johnhaddon
Copy link
Member

Thanks David - the underlying problem is already reported in #1039, but having a unit test as a starting point is great. I've marked this as pr-revisionRequired, not because there's anything wrong with it, but because we'll need a fix before we can merge.

@johnhaddon
Copy link
Member

I've cherry picked this test over into my working branch, so I'll close this pull request.

@johnhaddon johnhaddon closed this Mar 27, 2015
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
pr-revision PRs that should not be merged because a Reviewer has requested changes.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants