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

Alternate versions of files #1848

Open
Floppy opened this issue Feb 8, 2024 · 3 comments
Open

Alternate versions of files #1848

Floppy opened this issue Feb 8, 2024 · 3 comments
Labels
feature User-facing features and product enhancements

Comments

@Floppy
Copy link
Collaborator

Floppy commented Feb 8, 2024

Initially requested by @Rukongai in #1701

It'd be nice if we could designate a model folder, and choose have subfolders in that be variants of a model (supported, options, etc). With a lot of releases coming with a ton of variants, this would let my library stay cleaner

#35 will do this for supported/unsupported, but is there something else we could make for custom variants perhaps?

@Floppy Floppy added the feature User-facing features and product enhancements label Feb 8, 2024
@Floppy Floppy mentioned this issue Feb 8, 2024
@Rukongai
Copy link
Contributor

i've been messing around with manyfold again and poking around the code. I know that my use-case doesn't exactly reflect the use-case of the many

That being said, expanding on my original thoughts here - it seems recursive scanning beyond the configured folder structure is what is bothering me.

It seems that I have the folder structure set to, for example, {creator}/{modelName} for a library called figurines, I would want to have the model be at /libraries/creator/modelname with nested folders being visible inside the model view as additional files/resources, not added as additional models.

And once this "root" model folder has been established, being able to view (by filename, not render) all files in that folder would be swell.

Right now it feels like the only viable organization method for models is having flat folders for models, organized by nested tag folders.

I guess, if I had to summarize, I am hoping for a self-hosted variant of something like Thingiverse or Printables for my personal model collection.

Also - I hope I'm not coming across as nitpicky. I love what this project might represent and if I were even halfway decent at coding i'd love to contribute. Maybe in the future!

@Floppy
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Floppy commented Feb 16, 2024

This should be possible, but it might not be obvious or particularly frictionless. I've got some documentation to write and I'll try to include scenarios like this in it.

@Rukongai
Copy link
Contributor

I've been thinking on this and it seems to me a potential solution is having common_subfolders be user definable and able to be recursively scanned. I've been trying at it but haven't got it working

But that would allow you to define folders that expected by name, even nested and have it be part of the model.

I feel a big advantage here is not having to sort model files by name, allowing you to only need to worry about directory tree

Something like

    {
      "files" => file_pattern,
      "images" => image_pattern,
      "resources" => file_pattern,
      "presupported" => file_pattern,
      "supported" => file_pattern,
      "unsupported" => file_pattern,
      "parts" => file_pattern,
      "variants" => file_pattern,
      "extras" => file_pattern,
      "1_6th_scale" => file_pattern,
      "1_9th_scale" => file_pattern,
      "1_12th_scale" => file_pattern,
      "uncut" => file_pattern
    }

would be able to match

├───1_12th_scale
│   ├───supported
│   ├───extras
│   └───uncut
├───1_6th_scale
│   ├───supported
│   ├───extras
│   └───uncut
├───1_9th_scale
│   ├───supported
│   ├───extras
│   └───uncut
└───Images

All to a single model

I'll keep poking at it and see if I can make anything work

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
feature User-facing features and product enhancements
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants