Selecting Maya objects through memory using classes
What is the problem with the below code:
import maya.cmds as cmds
class MakeObject:
def __init__(self):
self.grp = cmds.createNode('transform')
def make_cube(self):
self.cube = cmds.polyCube(n='cube')[0]
cmds.parent(self.cube, self.grp)
def selection(self):
cmds.select(self.cube)
x = MakeObject()
x.make_cube()
y = MakeObject()
y.make_cube()
x.selection()
Unlike pymel, cmds doesn't use a wrapper to work with nodes. Instead it uses strings which can be problematic since they don't update dynamically. For example, if you create a new node my_cube = cmds.polyCube(n='cube')[0] then rename it, the my_cube variable will still be pointing the object's older name.
This could also be a problem if there are multiple objects in the scene that share the same duplicate name. Maya usually auto-renames duplicate naming to avoid conflicts, but it's valid to have duplicate names in different hierarchies. In this case you would have to access it by using the node's long name. For example, an object named "cube" that's parented under another object named "root" would have a long name "|root|cube".
All this being said, yes, there is a problem with this code. It's making 2 cubes with the same name and re-parenting them to a different hierarchy. So there will be 2 nodes with the name "cube". When the select command is called, it's literately calling cmds.select("cube"), but since there's more than one "cube" Maya has no idea how to interpret that and then throws an error.
What can be done is to capture the object's new long name by doing this after it parents: self.cube = cmds.ls(sl=True, long=True)[0]
Now it's able to select the first cube as expected.
Related
I'm new to programming so sorry for the basic question. I am trying to write a search algorithm for a class, and I thought creating a class for each search node would be helpful.
class Node(object):
def __init__(self, path_to_node, search_depth, current_state):
self.path_to_node = path_to_node
self.search_depth = search_depth
self.current_state = current_state
...
With some functions too. I am now trying to define a function outside of the class to create children nodes of a node and add them to a queue. node.current_state is a list
def bfs_expand(node, queuey, test_states):
# Node Queue List -> Queue List
# If legal move and not already in test states create and put children nodes
# into the queue and their state into test_states. Return queue and test states
# Copy original path, depth, and state to separate variables
original_path = node.path_to_node
original_depth = node.search_depth
original_state = node.current_state
# Check if up is legal, if so add new node to queue and state to test state
if node.is_legal_move('Up'):
up_state = original_state
a = up_state.index(0)
b = a - 3
up_state[a], up_state[b] = up_state[b], up_state[a]
if up_state not in test_states:
test_states.append(up_state)
up_node = Node(original_path + ['Up'], original_depth + 1, up_state)
queuey.put(up_node)
print(test_states)
print(original_state)
I then try to proceed through down, left and right with similar if statements, but they are messed up because the original_state has changed. When I print the original state after that up statement, it returns the up_state created in the if statement. I realize (well, I think) that this is because original_state, and therefore up_state, are actually calling node.current_state and do not store the list in a separate variable. How should I get the variable from a node to manipulate independently? Should I not even be using a class for something like this, maybe a dictionary? I don't need code written for me but a conceptual nudge would be greatly appreciated!
You should use copy.deepcopy if you want to avoid modifying the original
original_path = copy.deepcopy(node.path_to_node)
original_depth = copy.deepcopy(node.search_depth)
original_state = copy.deepcopy(node.current_state)
Or essentially whichever object you want to use as a "working copy" should be a deep copy of the original if you don't want to modify the original version of it.
Expanding a bit on #CoryKramer's answer: In Python, objects have reference semantics, which means that saying
a = b
where a and b are objects, makes both a and b references to the same object, meaning that changing a property on a will change that same property on b as well. In order to actually get a new object with the same properties as the old one, you should use copy.deepcopy as already stated. However, be careful when using that function. If your object contains a reference cycle (i.e.: It contains a reference to an object which contains a reference to itself), copy.deepcopy will lead to an infinite loop.
For this reason, there is also copy.copy, which does not follow object references contained in the object to copy.
I have been making a simple turn based 'board game' in python using a separate file to hold all of the data, such as what the attributes of a space is and the attributes of the players. All of this is stored in separate dictionaries. My problem lies in when I need to access or change data for specific players.
So far I have been doing it like this just so I can get it working and just focus on making it work:
def function(self): #self is the player number for that turn
if self == 1:
database.player1.update(data=0)
if self == 2:
database.player2.update(data=0)
...
and so on for all four players.
So what I tried to do instead was have something that went like this:
def function(self):
a = 'player' + (self)
database.a.update(data=a)
However unsurprisingly this won't work, but is there a way to get something like this where I am able to determine which dictionary to access based on self?
Use getattr
def function(self):
a = 'player'+str(self)
getattr(database,a).update(data=0)
getattr takes two arguments - the first is the object on which to retrieve the attribute (in your case your database module), the second is the name (string) of the attribute to retrieve (in your case "player1", "player2", etc).
I am working with classes in Python for the first time and I need to loop through my class attributes and delete certain instances under certain conditions. The problem is that I cannot find any examples of deleting instances of certain attributes. To be a little more specific, my class is phone_bills and one of my attributes is minutes_used and the instance would be minutes used of a specific month. Well, sometimes I need to delete that one month or one instance.
I am starting to wonder if working with classes is wrong for this particular project.
Here is some of my code (where i make the class and then at the bottom where i try to deltete an instance.
class MeterBill:
'components of MeterBill'
def __init__(self,IDC,Name,StartD,End_D,Mdays,Cons): #Name,StartD,End_D,Mdays,Cons):
self.IDC = IDC #idc
self.Name= Name #name
self.StartD = StartD #startd
self.End_D = End_D #end_d
self.Mdays = Mdays #modays
self.Cons = Cons #cons
def __repr__(self):
return repr((self.IDC,self.Name,self.StartD,self.End_D,self.Mdays,self.Cons))
#there is some other code here to read in the data then
e=len(bills); startlen=e;s=0
row=0; daysthresh=38; count=0
while count < startlen:
for row in range(s,e):
count = 1+ count
if bills[row-1].Mdays < daysthresh and bills[row-1].IDC==bills[row].IDC:
print bills[row-1],#row-1,meter[row-1]
bills[row].Mdays = bills[row-1].Mdays+bills[row].Mdays
bills[row].Cons = bills[row-1].Cons+bills[row].Cons
bills[row].StartD=bills[row-1].StartD
#del mybills.minutes_used
#bills=MeterBill()
del bills[row-1].Cons
the last 3 lines is me trying to delte an instance of my class at row-1 (using code from Peter Downs post). I want to delete this one line. I want to delete 1 single instance of each attribute that i defined.
so if I could get that del bill[row-1].cons to work then i would do it for all the other attributes at row-1.
Note you have to scroll to the right ot see my if statement.
I am starting to wonder if working with classes is wrong for this particular project.
No, certainly not, no worries :)
Lets say we have the following class:
class PhoneBills(object):
def __init__(self, minutes_used):
self.minutes_used = minutes_used
Then you can delete the attribute minutes_used simply by:
mybills = PhoneBills()
del mybills.minutes_used
Which would remove the attribute from your object mybills. All lookups would result in an exception. I'm not sure that this is what you want. Probably just setting minutes_used to 0 or None would be a better approach?
Using an object in this case isn't a bad idea, as others have pointed out. However, you have to think about the problem just a little bit differently in order to get the best use of these objects.
If you have a phone_bills object, then we assume its only responsibility is to manage a phone bill. It could be for a single month, it could be for an entire year - there's enough context in the object name that it could do both.
If it's managing a month-to-month bill, then what's required is, at the end of every month, the minutes used is recalculated, meaning that the value for the used minutes at this current point is reset, not deleted.
Now, unless your assignment specifically calls for you to delete the end-of-month total, then you're best served with resetting the value. The way to do this with Python objects is simple:
phone_bills.minutes_used = 0
Deleting means dereferencing the object, till its referencecounter reaches 0, so the garabage collector may free the allocated space for that particular object and effectivly destroying/deleting it.
What you want to do is set the appropriate attribute to None. By doing so, you reduce the refcounter by 1.
To illustrate what I mean, try the following:
import sys
ref = 'a Random object'
print sys.getrefcount(ref), id(ref)
newlist = [ref]
print sys.getrefcount(newlist[0]), id(newlist[0])
ref = None
print sys.getrefcount(newlist[0]), id(newlist[0])
newlist[0] = None
after the last line you have no reference to the underlying object, the refounter reaches 0 and the object gets collected by the garbage collector.
You may also use the del statement to express your intend clearly in your sourecode. e.g.: del june but then you also remove the identifier june from your namespace. Don't shoot the messanger! ;-)
I am starting to wonder if working with classes is wrong for this
particular project.
I believe that they may be unnecessary.
Instead of a class, try using dictionaries.
You could write a helper function to populate them, and it's very easy to remove a key from a dictionary.
The only reason to use a class is if you need instance methods - is that true?
Event then, you could rewrite them as regular functions.
def createPhoneBill(minutes_used):
return {
"minutes_used":minutes_used,
# you could put more attributes here, just add them as arguments to the function
}
As an added bonus, default values are much easier. Also, you get to use the dictionary.get(attr_name, default_value) function now, too.
Here's what deletion would look like:
Deleting an attribute:
mybills = createPhoneBill(5000):
if mybills["minutes_used"] > 2000:
del mybills["minutes_used"]
Deleting an 'instance':
mybills = createPhoneBill(5000):
if mybills["minutes_used"] > 3000:
del mybills
In Python, you don't delete objects--you simply remove any references towards them and allow the garbage collector to reclaim the memory they're holding.
Assigning phone_bills_obj.minutes_used = None would cause the garbage collector to remove the object referenced by phone_bills_ojb.minutes_used, in case the same object isn't being referenced anywhere else.
I am trying to compare two modules/classes/method and to find out if the class/method has have changed. We allow users to change classes/methods, and after processing, we make those changes persistent, without overwriting the older classes/methods. However, before we commit the new classes, we need to establish if the code has changed and also if the functionally of the methods has changed e.g output differ and performance also defer on the same input data. I am ok with performance change, but my problem is changes in code and how to log - what has changed. i wrote something like below
class TestIfClassHasChanged(unittest.TestCase):
def setUp(self):
self.old = old_class()
self.new = new_class()
def test_if_code_has_changed(self):
# simple case for one method
old_codeobject = self.old.area.func_code.co_code
new_codeobject = self.new.area.func_code.co_code
self.assertEqual(old_codeobject, new_codeobject)
where area() is a method in both classes.. However, if I have many methods, what i see here is looping over all methods. Possible to do this at class or module level?
Secondly if I find that the code objects are not equal, I would like to log the changes. I used inspect.getsource(self.old.area) and inspect.getsource(self.new.area) compared the two to get the difference, could there be a better way of doing this?
You should be using a version control program to help manage development. This is one of the specific d=features you get from vc program is the ability to track changes. You can do diffs between current source code and previous check-ins to test if there were any changes.
if i have many methods, what i see
here is looping over all methods.
Possible to do this at class or module
level?
i will not ask why you want to do such thing ? but yes you can here is an example
import inspect
import collections
# Here i will loop over all the function in a module
module = __import__('inspect') # this is fun !!!
# Get all function in the module.
list_functions = inspect.getmembers(module, inspect.isfunction)
# Get classes and methods correspond .
list_class = inspect.getmembers(module, inspect.isclass)
class_method = collections.defaultdict(list)
for class_name, class_obj in list_class:
for method in inspect.getmembers(class_obj, inspect.ismethod):
class_method[class_name].append(method)
I am developing a medium size program in python spread across 5 modules. The program accepts command line arguments using OptionParser in the main module e.g. main.py. These options are later used to determine how methods in other modules behave (e.g. a.py, b.py). As I extend the ability for the user to customise the behaviour or the program I find that I end up requiring this user-defined parameter in a method in a.py that is not directly called by main.py, but is instead called by another method in a.py:
main.py:
import a
p = some_command_line_argument_value
a.meth1(p)
a.py:
meth1(p):
# some code
res = meth2(p)
# some more code w/ res
meth2(p):
# do something with p
This excessive parameter passing seems wasteful and wrong, but has hard as I try I cannot think of a design pattern that solves this problem. While I had some formal CS education (minor in CS during my B.Sc.), I've only really come to appreciate good coding practices since I started using python. Please help me become a better programmer!
Create objects of types relevant to your program, and store the command line options relevant to each in them. Example:
import WidgetFrobnosticator
f = WidgetFrobnosticator()
f.allow_oncave_widgets = option_allow_concave_widgets
f.respect_weasel_pins = option_respect_weasel_pins
# Now the methods of WidgetFrobnosticator have access to your command-line parameters,
# in a way that's not dependent on the input format.
import PlatypusFactory
p = PlatypusFactory()
p.allow_parthenogenesis = option_allow_parthenogenesis
p.max_population = option_max_population
# The platypus factory knows about its own options, but not those of the WidgetFrobnosticator
# or vice versa. This makes each class easier to read and implement.
Maybe you should organize your code more into classes and objects? As I was writing this, Jimmy showed a class-instance based answer, so here is a pure class-based answer. This would be most useful if you only ever wanted a single behavior; if there is any chance at all you might want different defaults some of the time, you should use ordinary object-oriented programming in Python, i.e. pass around class instances with the property p set in the instance, not the class.
class Aclass(object):
p = None
#classmethod
def init_p(cls, value):
p = value
#classmethod
def meth1(cls):
# some code
res = cls.meth2()
# some more code w/ res
#classmethod
def meth2(cls):
# do something with p
pass
from a import Aclass as ac
ac.init_p(some_command_line_argument_value)
ac.meth1()
ac.meth2()
If "a" is a real object and not just a set of independent helper methods, you can create an "p" member variable in "a" and set it when you instantiate an "a" object. Then your main class will not need to pass "p" into meth1 and meth2 once "a" has been instantiated.
[Caution: my answer isn't specific to python.]
I remember that Code Complete called this kind of parameter a "tramp parameter". Googling for "tramp parameter" doesn't return many results, however.
Some alternatives to tramp parameters might include:
Put the data in a global variable
Put the data in a static variable of a class (similar to global data)
Put the data in an instance variable of a class
Pseudo-global variable: hidden behind a singleton, or some dependency injection mechanism
Personally, I don't mind a tramp parameter as long as there's no more than one; i.e. your example is OK for me, but I wouldn't like ...
import a
p1 = some_command_line_argument_value
p2 = another_command_line_argument_value
p3 = a_further_command_line_argument_value
a.meth1(p1, p2, p3)
... instead I'd prefer ...
import a
p = several_command_line_argument_values
a.meth1(p)
... because if meth2 decides that it wants more data than before, I'd prefer if it could extract this extra data from the original parameter which it's already being passed, so that I don't need to edit meth1.
With objects, parameter lists should normally be very small, since most appropriate information is a property of the object itself. The standard way to handle this is to configure the object properties and then call the appropriate methods of that object. In this case set p as an attribute of a. Your meth2 should also complain if p is not set.
Your example is reminiscent of the code smell Message Chains. You may find the corresponding refactoring, Hide Delegate, informative.