It used to be on purpose, and it was never changed. If I remember correctly, the last time this was discussed, sliptonic said, that it might well be changed. So if you have the abilities - go for it .
There is a strange kind of logic going on here. Visibility of an operation seems to be job.visibility OR Operations.visibility OR operation.visibility. In practice this seems to mean you might as well hide all jobs as soon as they are created. Then you can toggle each path op.The same with jobs. If I hide them, I still have to hide every single child element (operations, model, stock), for nothing of the job to be visible.
Code: Select all
>>> import Path >>> p1 = Path.Path("G1X1") >>> o1 = App.ActiveDocument.addObject("Path::Feature","path1") >>> o1.Path=p1 >>> p2 = Path.Path("G1Y1") >>> o2 = App.ActiveDocument.addObject("Path::Feature","path2") >>> o2.Path=p2 >>> o3 = App.ActiveDocument.addObject("Path::FeatureCompound","compound") >>> o3.Group=[o1,o2]
Why not apply the same logic to visibility?Also the postprocessing process got much more complex. Instead of working at the job level, it iterates over all the individual operations and may add additional code and repeat operations to handle different work coordinate systems. It really isn't using the aggregated Path of the Job at all.
The behaviour has changed - quite significantly. In the past, the job visibility was controlling whether or not you were seeing the job's version of the underlying paths. Toggling its visibility had no effect on the children. Now, the job is not rendering the Path at all and toggling its state affects its children (both path objects and others other objects like stock).
The operations sub-group backplot is showing the entire path that will be postprocessed (not counting multiple WCS).I don't see the need for two renditions of basically the same thing.
I don't understand what you mean.When toggling job or Operations, why not iterate all paths and render them if they are visibility true?
Because we live in FreeCAD. It's important that Path things look and behave like they do in other areas whenever possible.This is what I would expect from the tree view and has always confused me about this visibility thing. Apparently, I am not alone, this feels counter intuitive. Maybe it's just depends on how you are used to working.
Why not apply the same logic to visibility?
This wasn't always the case. In fact creating the individual ops as hidden is a very recent change. It was made so that there's less confusion.Currently jobs are created visible, which is expected since it is the current focus of work.
Path ops are created hidden which is a bit disrouting. If I've just created something I at least want to see it to confirm it is how I want it. If it is likely to clutter what I do next I will click it hidden before creating the next path.
What I meant was:sliptonic wrote:I don't understand what you mean.me wrote: When toggling job or Operations, why not iterate all paths and render them if they are visibility true?
I don't think that is an accurate description of what happens. Probably just a question of language. Toggling ( inverting ) the job, does not invert the child.When you toggle the state of a parent, all the children are toggled as well.
Again not what I'm seeing. If Helix and Profile001 are hidden, unhiding Operations makes them visible.Toggling its state has no effect on its children.
That is another anomaly. The visibility of the stock is only relevant while the job ( or Operations ) is selected. When I take the focus of hole-job, the stock disappears. Also stock is green when turned on by job but black when toggled itself. Again confusing.Now, the job is not rendering the Path at all and toggling its state affects its children (both path objects and others other objects like stock).
I think this is why it is not intuitive. Things are not consistent.The current behaviour of the Path node in the tree is confusing because the group doesn't behave like other groups. The reason for the distinction isn't valid anymore. I think we should fix that.
Yes, thought that was odd but I was not sure whether I simply had not noticed before.This wasn't always the case. In fact creating the individual ops as hidden is a very recent change.
With respect this was probably not the bit which needed changing.It was made so that there's less confusion.