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

Ability to control the order of processing model output layers #44184

Closed
pathmapper opened this issue Jul 15, 2021 · 1 comment · Fixed by #52996
Closed

Ability to control the order of processing model output layers #44184

pathmapper opened this issue Jul 15, 2021 · 1 comment · Fixed by #52996
Labels
Feature Request Modeller Processing Relating to QGIS Processing framework or individual Processing algorithms

Comments

@pathmapper
Copy link
Contributor

Feature description.

There are a lot of use cases where a specific layer order for processing model output layers is wanted, e.g. so that a layer with point features is not hidden by a layer with polygon features.

Unless I'm missing something, there's currently no way to control the order of processing model output layers, so it could be that you have to rearrange the layers manually after the model is finished.

Here's a test_model_output.zip where it looks like the output order is totally random, despite the algorithm 2 is always executed after 1 by setting a dependency.

image

layer_order

Maybe one option to control the layer order would be to make the output order dependent on the order in which the model algorithms are executed. This way it would be possible to control the layer order by setting algorithm dependencies, e.g. for the sample model above layer 2 would be always positioned on top of layer 1.

Additional context

This is a recurring question on SE:

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Feature Request Modeller Processing Relating to QGIS Processing framework or individual Processing algorithms
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants