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

GraphEdit. Bad key name in get_connection_list() dictionary #40322

Closed
Lexpartizan opened this issue Jul 12, 2020 · 6 comments
Closed

GraphEdit. Bad key name in get_connection_list() dictionary #40322

Lexpartizan opened this issue Jul 12, 2020 · 6 comments

Comments

@Lexpartizan
Copy link

Lexpartizan commented Jul 12, 2020

This is a small problem that can hardly be called a error. More like inattention. When we use the connect_node(from, from_slot, to,to_slot) or disconnect_node(from,from_slot to,to_slot) functions in such graphedit, we use from_slot and to_slot . get_connection_list () return array structure of the form {from_port: 0, from: "graphnode name 0", to_port: 1, to: "graphnode name 1" }.
In one case, we refer to ports, and in the other to slots, although they are the same entity.

I suggest changing the key names in the get_connection_list () function to from_slot and to_slot to avoid confusion.
I think that with the transition to the new major version 4.0, you can fix this and break compatibility.
Or duplicate this keys to from_slot and to_slot to maintain compatibility.

It might have been worth adding to the proposal, but I don't think it's a suggestion, it's a correction of an error that was made inattentively. So I write about it here.

@mrushyendra
Copy link
Contributor

Related to #40043

@Lexpartizan
Copy link
Author

@mrushyendra
Thank you, I didn't expect that these are really different concepts. This can lead to confusion.
#37227

@umarcor
Copy link
Contributor

umarcor commented Aug 22, 2020

@Lexpartizan, @mrushyendra can this issue be considered to be fixed by #40043 and, thus, to be a dup of #37227?

@Lexpartizan
Copy link
Author

@umarcor, Yes, i think so.

@umarcor
Copy link
Contributor

umarcor commented Aug 22, 2020

@Lexpartizan thanks!
@mrushyendra, I guess it's sensible to make it explicit in the first comment of #37227.

@akien-mga
Copy link
Member

Closing as duplicate of #37227 then.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants