-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 205
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
Arnold Default Metadata #3112
Arnold Default Metadata #3112
Conversation
https://github.blog/2019-02-14-introducing-draft-pull-requests/
As things stand, I think the best option for that is to have one test which launches a subprocess. I've used that approach in a couple of other places, and while its not particularly elegant, its effects are localised and it does work.
LGTM. It seems a bit of a pity that the "find the default override" has to be done by the caller of |
1d043f9
to
5d3d85f
Compare
Was a bit of fiddling to get the tests set up and get things sorted out in various Arnold versions, but I think this is good to go now. Still need to set up an example .mtd for overriding the standard_surface defaults in Arnold 5.3 ( which is the motivation for this ), but that can be a separate PR. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks Daniel - could you fix up the version conditional problem and then merge?
@@ -198,12 +198,14 @@ Gaffer::Plug *setupColorPlug( const AtNodeEntry *node, const AtParamEntry *param | |||
bool defaultOverridden = false; | |||
if( std::is_same< ValueType, Color4f >::value ) | |||
{ | |||
#if AI_VERSION_ARCH_NUM >= 5 && AI_VERSION_MAJOR_NUM >= 3 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This will break for 6.0.
after adding "gaffer.default" support
5d3d85f
to
be769fa
Compare
I thought we had a special label to use for exploratory work, but I can't find it now, so I've just tagged this revisionRequired.
This isn't done, but I think it's basically ready for review to make sure the approach is right:
Anyway, does this look about like what you were thinking?