Hi dima, Yep. That's what I just said we need in the long term :)
Thanks for the link. Bookmarked for further investigation now, Cheers, Joshua On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 7:14 PM, dima glib <[email protected]> wrote: > Did anyone consider having an independent math expression evaluation > engine? (e.g. some library from > https://github.com/ArashPartow/math-parser-benchmark-project) > It could be added either as a separate driver type, or auto-detected based > on whether a "pure-math" engine can compile a given expression. > This would likely remove the need to enable scripting for 99% of driver > use-cases. Would it be too complicated to implement? > > > On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Joshua Leung <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I agree that the current situation isn't great, and does need to be > > improved. > > > > However, IMO the proposed solution is not good either. Specifically, as > > presented, it does seem that to imply that that checkbox will always get > > shown. There are several issues with this: > > 1) It is highly unlikely that you will want to disable the thing again > once > > enabled. > > 2) That setting applies to all scripts/settings, not just the current > > driver. It is therefore misleading to include it as a checkbox there. > > 3) When loading existing files (with the autorun setting disabled), > there's > > the duplication that Sergey mentioned (i.e. info header + this panel). > > 4) IIRC, just putting the checkbox there isn't enough to get everything > > running properly for the current session only. > > > > ------- > > > > That said, when this autorun setting is disabled (via userpref or > > commandline options), there *is* the annoying problem that newly created > > drivers cannot be run, with no obvious way to get them working. This is a > > usability issue. > > > > As a short-term compromise, I propose that beside/under the error prompt, > > we include the "Reload Trusted" operator button (shown in the info header > > when loading files when autorun is disabled). We'd have to prompt the > user > > to save their work (or do it for them), and perhaps the label would need > to > > be different (something like "Enable Python autorun"). > > > > ------ > > > > In the long-term though, IMO we really should look into building our own > > little "mini-Python interpreter" for interpreting driver expressions. > > Campbell's work with sandboxing the Py interpreter (e.g. by whitelisting > > bytecode opcodes) is a promising if fragile approach. However, it doesn't > > mitigate the multithreading problems with Python and the GIL (i.e. there > > can only be a single Py interpreter instance running/evaluating code at > > one). I know that Bassam and a few other riggers have been having > problems > > with some of their rigs running slowly (or even crashing) under the new > > depsgraph due to multiple pydrivers getting scheduled to run at once, and > > everything grinding to a halt as they're evaluated one by one. Thus, by > > building our own "driver expression interpreter" that only handles the > > subset of Python-like syntax actually needed to evaluate driver > > expressions, we can solve both security + performance issues at once. > > > > As a fallback, "full" Python evaluation can still occur if our > interpreter > > cannot handle a particular expression (i.e. the rigger tried to access a > > custom function, or tried to do something "fancy" with indexing/attribute > > access). That then would still required autorun to be enabled, and would > > still be subject to the GIL restrictions. However, since fewer drivers > > should now be affected by the Py bottleneck/limitation, it's still a net > > positive for users in general over the current situation. > > > > Regards, > > Joshua > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 11:06 PM, Gaia Clary < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > The current solution to this situation is also not a good idea i > believe > > :) > > > > > > However, isn't there a difference here between ? > > > > > > - a global definition in user preferences > > > - a session related setting > > > > > > In that sense i believe my proposal is not that bad, as it allows to > > > set the autorun option right on spot (where the drivers are defined) > > > but only for the current session. And it avoids the display of an error > > > and it seemsvery intuitive to me. > > > > > > Also i believe when there is a bad idea at all here, then it is to > force > > > the user to enable scripting when all they want is to use drivers. > > > Of course i know Campbell has put some effort into this to see how > python > > > could be made more secure so that using it within drivers would no > longer > > > be a security problem, and "python in drivers" could be always enabled. > > > But as far as i know there is no satisfying solution for this, > > > so drivers still need to have auto run enabled. > > > > > > Anyways, it was just a proposal, if its not useful, then its ok for me. > > > I asked at least :) > > > > > > cheers, > > > Gaia > > > > > > On 04.06.2017 10:26, Sergey Sharybin wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > This isn't a good idea. You should not expose same user setting all > > over > > > > the interface. All those settings should be kept in a centralized > > place. > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 1:04 AM, Aaron Carlisle < > [email protected] > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> I think it is a good idea, I also think that it would be fine to > have > > > this > > > >> in 2.79. > > > >> > > > >> Aaron Carlisle > > > >> > > > >> Picture taker | Bit cruncher | Pixel pusher | Document writer | > Artist > > > >> Project administrator for the Blender 3D Documentation Project > > > >> > > > >> On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Gaia Clary < > > > [email protected]> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> Hi; > > > >>> > > > >>> Assume you have disabled "Autorun Python Scripts" by default. > > > >>> Now add a new driver and step into the graph editor to edit > > > >>> the Driver python expression. > > > >>> > > > >>> Currently you will see an error text in the panel. > > > >>> But what about a change like in the image here: > > > >>> > > > >>> http://pasteall.org/pic/show.php?id=116080 > > > >>> > > > >>> If this is an acceptable improvement, is that something that > > > >>> could possibly already go into Blender 2.79 or would that be only > > > >>> good for Blender 2.8 ? > > > >>> > > > >>> cheers, > > > >>> Gaia > > > >>> > > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > > >>> Bf-committers mailing list > > > >>> [email protected] > > > >>> https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > > > >>> > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > >> Bf-committers mailing list > > > >> [email protected] > > > >> https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Bf-committers mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Bf-committers mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > > > _______________________________________________ > Bf-committers mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
