Docs : Add Arnold trace sets example and re-classify blockers

[themissingcow]

• Adds an example to cover Arnold trace set setup after user queries
• Re-homes the blockers example under 'lighting' (@medubelko I couldn't see any other doc refs to it).

[johnhaddon]

@medubelko, could you give this one a quick review?

[themissingcow]

@medubelko, could you give this one a quick review?

@medubelko Note, these were written pre style-guide...

[johnhaddon]

@medubelko, are you able to take a look? If not I'll give a quick once over and merge myself...

[themissingcow]

@medubelko, are you able to take a look? If not I'll give a quick once over and merge myself...

@johnhaddon (and @medubelko) I'll go back to this tomorrow and update to follow the examples style guide now we have one. This didn't exist at the time of writing, so it will be flagrantly out of line I'm sure.

[medubelko]

@themissingcow Thanks. I'll put some time aside tomorrow to review your update.

[themissingcow]

@medubelko Sorry for the delay here, I've updated the example attempting to follow the examples style guide. The only notable exception is that I couldn't do the 'bigger backdrop behind the nodes' thing, as the new backdrops are always created on top! Do you have a trick for that?

[medubelko]

@themissingcow Please see comments. I've tried a new format, where I put in editing markup directly in GitHub, so you can see the precise changes. Hopefully this is readable and helpful.

The only notable exception is that I couldn't do the 'bigger backdrop behind the nodes' thing, as the new backdrops are always created on top! Do you have a trick for that?

Create the background Backdrop, copy the serialized graph to a text editor, rename all of the references to the foreground Backdrop to a higher index, copy-paste back into Gaffer. Tedious, I know. Maybe I can ask you to make a Backdrop layer ordering feature? :)

[themissingcow]

@medubelko Thanks for all the tweaks - all should be updated in the latest push, aside from a few things (I've replied to in-line) where the specific meaning/terminology needed to be preserved.

[medubelko]

Good stuff. There are a few more things I'd like to tweak.

[medubelko]

Hi Tom, thanks for going over my nitpicks. Just one more, in addition to the missing "of" in the above comment: double-quotation marks for set names. I should have picked up on them last week, my mistake.

[themissingcow]

Hi Tom, thanks for going over my nitpicks. Just one more, in addition to the missing "of" in the above comment: double-quotation marks for set names. I should have picked up on them last week, my mistake.

No probs at all, hopefully all are updated in 9a114cf.

Thanks for the eagle eye - sorry for the missing words!

[medubelko]

Gah! Just one more.

(I think I should come up with a better review markup, so it's harder to miss all the typographic suggestions...)

[themissingcow]

k I should come up with a better review markup, so it's harder to miss all the typographic suggestions...)

If it helps, I can make revisions in separate commits then we can squish them before merging, then you can just see the deltas between each revision?

I'd been force-pushing so it was merge-able, but it's no problem to sign off then squish if it makes it any easier.

I think the markup itself is great though and works well this end, at least. Was just an oversight, apologies.

[medubelko]

Thanks. Good to go.

If it helps, I can make revisions in separate commits then we can squish them before merging, then you can just see the deltas between each revision?

Oh, no, everything was fine on my end, I just want to make it easier for you to keep track of requested edits (à la GDocs).

I'd been force-pushing so it was merge-able, but it's no problem to sign off then squish if it makes it any easier.

I'm for this, since in my experience it makes it easier from the committer's side. But for this particular PR, it wasn't a challenge to keep track of your changes. :)