THE PROBLEM
In short, below works but only when hardcoded like this.
class GetWindowCommand(sublime_plugin.WindowCommand):
#NEED VARIABLE INSTEAD OF THE HARDCODED "qv" string
sublime.active_window().run_command("get_window",{"qualifier": "qv"})
def __init__(self,window):
self.window=window
def run(self,qualifier):
self.projectFolders(qualifier)
def projectFolders(self,qualifier):
print(qualifier)
My goal is that when plugin is loaded, it reads the project folders and looks for specific files depending on the folder. As such, I need to access an external variable AS WELL AS the the WindowCommandClass
When doing print(WindowCommandClass) I notice it populates all the methods with the self,window variables and everything works.
In theory I thought I could introduce variables as shown below
qualifier="qv"
print(WindowCommandClass.projectFolders(qualifier))
However, introducing arguments to any method on that class seems to destroy the self and window arguments from the WindowCommandClass. I've only been using python & sublime text api for a couple days, so I have no idea if I'm missing something small or attempting the impossible. Any ideas?
Your question does not make it clear what the problem is. But have a look at this example and the notes I've made in it, perhaps it will help.
class GetWindowCommand(sublime_plugin.WindowCommand):
# The following call should not be anywhere in your plugin at all
# unless for some reason you want to restart your plugin:
# sublime.active_window().run_command("get_window", {"qualifier": "qv"})
def run(self, qualifier=None):
""" Called by Sublime Text when the plugin is run. """
# self.window is set by Sublime - do NOT set it in a __init__() method.
# The 'qualifier' variable will hold whatever the 'qualifier' arg
# was when the plugin was launched, e.g. 'foo' in my example below,
# or None if the plugin was started without the 'qualifier' arg set.
project_data = self.window.project_data()
if not project_data:
return
project_folders = project_data.get("folders", [])
if not project_folders:
print("No project folders have been set.")
return
for folder in project_folders:
print(folder)
You could launch your plugin by assigning a key binding in your user keys file:
{ "keys": ["ctrl+f0"], "command": "get_window", "args": {"qualifier": "foo" } },
In case anyone is looking to pass values to a class in Sublime Text 3 plugin
Given a class that starts out
class GetWindow(sublime_plugin.WindowCommand)
def __init__(self,window):
self.window=window
def results(self)
return("just testing")
I was calling INCORRECTLY as
print(GetWindow().results())
What I had to do was supply the function with the class like this.
print(GetWindow(sublime_plugin.WindowCommand).results())
Now to get the variable as mentioned in original post I can do this
qualifier='qv'
results=SublimeID(sublime.window,qualifier).results()
Also modify class & methods to include the variable
def __init__(self,window,qualifier):
self.qualifier=qualifier
def results(self)
qualifer=self.qualifier
# You can now work with this external variable #
I am working on a simple QWizard that displays some radio buttons on its pages. The buttons on a given page are all part of the same QButtonGroup. The page is registered as a custom field in itself, based on the selection in the button group:
class Page1(QWizardPage):
selectionChanged = pyqtSignal('QString')
def __init__(self, name):
self.group = QButtonGroup()
self.group.addButton(QRadioButton("a"))
self.group.addButton(QRadioButton("b"))
self.group.addButton(QRadioButton("c"))
self.registerField(name, self, 'selection', self.selectionChanged)
#pyqtProperty('QString')
def selection(self):
checkedButton = self.group.checkedButton()
return checkedButton.text() if checkedButton else None
def nextId(self): return -1
I end up registering self as the widget containing the field property simply because QButtonGroup is not a QWidget. All of the other pages look pretty much exactly like this (I am actually using base class to do all the common work, and this is just a minimal example).
I would like to be able to get a list of all the registered fields in the QWizard. I have not found any methods provided by Qt to allow me to do this so I made a workaround by overriding the behavior of each page's registerField method as well as the wizard's addPage:
def registerField(self, name, *args, **kwargs):
self.field_names.add(name)
if self.wizard() is not None:
self.wizard().field_names.add(name)
super().registerField(name, *args, **kwargs)
def addPage(self, page, *args, **kwargs):
self.field_names.union(page.field_names)
return super().addPage(page, *args, **kwargs)
I can then use the field_set attribute of the parent QWizard combined with QWizard.field to access all the values. This seems a bit redundant and therefore unnecessary. Is there a method in Qt to access the complete collection of fields? The relevant section in the documentation does not mention anything, but there are a lot of other details it omits, so that's not very telling.
My assumption is that the functionality, if it exists, would be the same for PyQt4 as for PyQt5. If it is not, I would prefer an answer for PyQt5 since that is what I am using at the moment.
You said that if the answer is negative it would have to be "pretty convincing." You admit that the documentation contains no mention of the function you want, and I will point out that no such function appears in the list of public functions for QWizard. Therefore the desired function, if it exists at all, is undocumented. To me, that consideration alone would be a "pretty convincing" reason not to use it. The next release of Qt might not have that function, or it might not work the same way.
Meanwhile you have an acceptable solution with eight lines of straightforward python code. Given the choice between that and calling an undocumented function (if you can find it), the python solution is vastly superior in all practical respects.
There is a potential problem with your Python code, however. You override the function QWizard.addPage, but there is another function QWizard.removePage that should probably be overridden as well. An alternative approach, which I would prefer, is not to store the field_names in QWizard at all but only in the individual pages. Add a method to QWizard to dynamically build a set of all the current field_names:
def all_field_names(self):
return {s for page_id in self.pageIds() for s in self.page(page_id).field_names}
[I didn't have a good way of testing this function, but I think you get the idea.] Now you remove the overridden method QWizard.addPage, remove the variable field_names from QWizard, and remove the middle two lines of register_field. Now you have only five lines of Python code, which will work regardless of how pages are added or removed. And you no longer store the field names in two places.
For what it's worth, whenever I'm confronted with a choice between using Qt's functionality or basic Python functionality, I always lean toward Python. I use threads instead of QThreads, threading locks and timers instead of Qt equivalents, Python method objects and callbacks instead of custom Slots and Signals. Qt was written for C++ programmers and that often means that it's not as "pythonic" as I would like.
I have been playing with the Ruby library "shoes". Basically you can write a GUI application in the following way:
Shoes.app do
t = para "Not clicked!"
button "The Label" do
alert "You clicked the button!" # when clicked, make an alert
t.replace "Clicked!" # ..and replace the label's text
end
end
This made me think - how would I design a similarly nice-to-use GUI framework in Python? One that doesn't have the usual tyings of basically being wrappers to a C* library (In the case of GTK, Tk, wx, QT etc etc)
Shoes takes things from web devlopment (like #f0c2f0 style colour notation, CSS layout techniques, like :margin => 10), and from ruby (extensively using blocks in sensible ways)
Python's lack of "rubyish blocks" makes a (metaphorically)-direct port impossible:
def Shoeless(Shoes.app):
self.t = para("Not clicked!")
def on_click_func(self):
alert("You clicked the button!")
self.t.replace("clicked!")
b = button("The label", click=self.on_click_func)
No where near as clean, and wouldn't be nearly as flexible, and I'm not even sure if it would be implementable.
Using decorators seems like an interesting way to map blocks of code to a specific action:
class BaseControl:
def __init__(self):
self.func = None
def clicked(self, func):
self.func = func
def __call__(self):
if self.func is not None:
self.func()
class Button(BaseControl):
pass
class Label(BaseControl):
pass
# The actual applications code (that the end-user would write)
class MyApp:
ok = Button()
la = Label()
#ok.clicked
def clickeryHappened():
print "OK Clicked!"
if __name__ == '__main__':
a = MyApp()
a.ok() # trigger the clicked action
Basically the decorator function stores the function, then when the action occurred (say, a click) the appropriate function would be executed.
The scope of various stuff (say, the la label in the above example) could be rather complicated, but it seems doable in a fairly neat manner..
You could actually pull this off, but it would require using metaclasses, which are deep magic (there be dragons). If you want an intro to metaclasses, there's a series of articles from IBM which manage to introduce the ideas without melting your brain.
The source code from an ORM like SQLObject might help, too, since it uses this same kind of declarative syntax.
I was never satisfied with David Mertz's articles at IBM on metaclsses so I recently wrote my own metaclass article. Enjoy.
This is extremely contrived and not pythonic at all, but here's my attempt at a semi-literal translation using the new "with" statement.
with Shoes():
t = Para("Not clicked!")
with Button("The Label"):
Alert("You clicked the button!")
t.replace("Clicked!")
The hardest part is dealing with the fact that python will not give us anonymous functions with more than one statement in them. To get around that, we could create a list of commands and run through those...
Anyway, here's the backend code I ran this with:
context = None
class Nestable(object):
def __init__(self,caption=None):
self.caption = caption
self.things = []
global context
if context:
context.add(self)
def __enter__(self):
global context
self.parent = context
context = self
def __exit__(self, type, value, traceback):
global context
context = self.parent
def add(self,thing):
self.things.append(thing)
print "Adding a %s to %s" % (thing,self)
def __str__(self):
return "%s(%s)" % (self.__class__.__name__, self.caption)
class Shoes(Nestable):
pass
class Button(Nestable):
pass
class Alert(Nestable):
pass
class Para(Nestable):
def replace(self,caption):
Command(self,"replace",caption)
class Command(Nestable):
def __init__(self, target, command, caption):
self.command = command
self.target = target
Nestable.__init__(self,caption)
def __str__(self):
return "Command(%s text of %s with \"%s\")" % (self.command, self.target, self.caption)
def execute(self):
self.target.caption = self.caption
## All you need is this class:
class MainWindow(Window):
my_button = Button('Click Me')
my_paragraph = Text('This is the text you wish to place')
my_alert = AlertBox('What what what!!!')
#my_button.clicked
def my_button_clicked(self, button, event):
self.my_paragraph.text.append('And now you clicked on it, the button that is.')
#my_paragraph.text.changed
def my_paragraph_text_changed(self, text, event):
self.button.text = 'No more clicks!'
#my_button.text.changed
def my_button_text_changed(self, text, event):
self.my_alert.show()
## The Style class is automatically gnerated by the framework
## but you can override it by defining it in the class:
##
## class MainWindow(Window):
## class Style:
## my_blah = {'style-info': 'value'}
##
## or like you see below:
class Style:
my_button = {
'background-color': '#ccc',
'font-size': '14px'}
my_paragraph = {
'background-color': '#fff',
'color': '#000',
'font-size': '14px',
'border': '1px solid black',
'border-radius': '3px'}
MainWindow.Style = Style
## The layout class is automatically generated
## by the framework but you can override it by defining it
## in the class, same as the Style class above, or by
## defining it like this:
class MainLayout(Layout):
def __init__(self, style):
# It takes the custom or automatically generated style class upon instantiation
style.window.pack(HBox().pack(style.my_paragraph, style.my_button))
MainWindow.Layout = MainLayout
if __name__ == '__main__':
run(App(main=MainWindow))
It would be relatively easy to do in python with a bit of that metaclass python magic know how. Which I have. And a knowledge of PyGTK. Which I also have. Gets ideas?
With some Metaclass magic to keep the ordering I have the following working. I'm not sure how pythonic it is but it is good fun for creating simple things.
class w(Wndw):
title='Hello World'
class txt(Txt): # either a new class
text='Insert name here'
lbl=Lbl(text='Hello') # or an instance
class greet(Bbt):
text='Greet'
def click(self): #on_click method
self.frame.lbl.text='Hello %s.'%self.frame.txt.text
app=w()
The only attempt to do this that I know of is Hans Nowak's Wax (which is unfortunately dead).
The closest you can get to rubyish blocks is the with statement from pep343:
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0343/
If you use PyGTK with glade and this glade wrapper, then PyGTK actually becomes somewhat pythonic. A little at least.
Basically, you create the GUI layout in Glade. You also specify event callbacks in glade. Then you write a class for your window like this:
class MyWindow(GladeWrapper):
GladeWrapper.__init__(self, "my_glade_file.xml", "mainWindow")
self.GtkWindow.show()
def button_click_event (self, *args):
self.button1.set_label("CLICKED")
Here, I'm assuming that I have a GTK Button somewhere called button1 and that I specified button_click_event as the clicked callback. The glade wrapper takes a lot of effort out of event mapping.
If I were to design a Pythonic GUI library, I would support something similar, to aid rapid development. The only difference is that I would ensure that the widgets have a more pythonic interface too. The current PyGTK classes seem very C to me, except that I use foo.bar(...) instead of bar(foo, ...) though I'm not sure exactly what I'd do differently. Probably allow for a Django models style declarative means of specifying widgets and events in code and allowing you to access data though iterators (where it makes sense, eg widget lists perhaps), though I haven't really thought about it.
Maybe not as slick as the Ruby version, but how about something like this:
from Boots import App, Para, Button, alert
def Shoeless(App):
t = Para(text = 'Not Clicked')
b = Button(label = 'The label')
def on_b_clicked(self):
alert('You clicked the button!')
self.t.text = 'Clicked!'
Like Justin said, to implement this you would need to use a custom metaclass on class App, and a bunch of properties on Para and Button. This actually wouldn't be too hard.
The problem you run into next is: how do you keep track of the order that things appear in the class definition? In Python 2.x, there is no way to know if t should be above b or the other way around, since you receive the contents of the class definition as a python dict.
However, in Python 3.0 metaclasses are being changed in a couple of (minor) ways. One of them is the __prepare__ method, which allows you to supply your own custom dictionary-like object to be used instead -- this means you'll be able to track the order in which items are defined, and position them accordingly in the window.
This could be an oversimplification, i don't think it would be a good idea to try to make a general purpose ui library this way. On the other hand you could use this approach (metaclasses and friends) to simplify the definition of certain classes of user interfaces for an existing ui library and depending of the application that could actually save you a significant amount of time and code lines.
I have this same problem. I wan to to create a wrapper around any GUI toolkit for Python that is easy to use, and inspired by Shoes, but needs to be a OOP approach (against ruby blocks).
More information in: http://wiki.alcidesfonseca.com/blog/python-universal-gui-revisited
Anyone's welcome to join the project.
If you really want to code UI, you could try to get something similar to django's ORM; sth like this to get a simple help browser:
class MyWindow(Window):
class VBox:
entry = Entry()
bigtext = TextView()
def on_entry_accepted(text):
bigtext.value = eval(text).__doc__
The idea would be to interpret some containers (like windows) as simple classes, some containers (like tables, v/hboxes) recognized by object names, and simple widgets as objects.
I dont think one would have to name all containers inside a window, so some shortcuts (like old-style classes being recognized as widgets by names) would be desirable.
About the order of elements: in MyWindow above you don't have to track this (window is conceptually a one-slot container). In other containers you can try to keep track of the order assuming that each widget constructor have access to some global widget list. This is how it is done in django (AFAIK).
Few hacks here, few tweaks there... There are still few things to think of, but I believe it is possible... and usable, as long as you don't build complicated UIs.
However I am pretty happy with PyGTK+Glade. UI is just kind of data for me and it should be treated as data. There's just too much parameters to tweak (like spacing in different places) and it is better to manage that using a GUI tool. Therefore I build my UI in glade, save as xml and parse using gtk.glade.XML().
Personally, I would try to implement JQuery like API in a GUI framework.
class MyWindow(Window):
contents = (
para('Hello World!'),
button('Click Me', id='ok'),
para('Epilog'),
)
def __init__(self):
self['#ok'].click(self.message)
self['para'].hover(self.blend_in, self.blend_out)
def message(self):
print 'You clicked!'
def blend_in(self, object):
object.background = '#333333'
def blend_out(self, object):
object.background = 'WindowBackground'
Here's an approach that goes about GUI definitions a bit differently using class-based meta-programming rather than inheritance.
This is largley Django/SQLAlchemy inspired in that it is heavily based on meta-programming and separates your GUI code from your "code code". I also think it should make heavy use of layout managers like Java does because when you're dropping code, no one wants to constantly tweak pixel alignment. I also think it would be cool if we could have CSS-like properties.
Here is a rough brainstormed example that will show a column with a label on top, then a text box, then a button to click on the bottom which shows a message.
from happygui.controls import *
MAIN_WINDOW = Window(width="500px", height="350px",
my_layout=ColumnLayout(padding="10px",
my_label=Label(text="What's your name kiddo?", bold=True, align="center"),
my_edit=EditBox(placeholder=""),
my_btn=Button(text="CLICK ME!", on_click=Handler('module.file.btn_clicked')),
),
)
MAIN_WINDOW.show()
def btn_clicked(sender): # could easily be in a handlers.py file
name = MAIN_WINDOW.my_layout.my_edit.text
# same thing: name = sender.parent.my_edit.text
# best practice, immune to structure change: MAIN_WINDOW.find('my_edit').text
MessageBox("Your name is '%s'" % ()).show(modal=True)
One cool thing to notice is the way you can reference the input of my_edit by saying MAIN_WINDOW.my_layout.my_edit.text. In the declaration for the window, I think it's important to be able to arbitrarily name controls in the function kwargs.
Here is the same app only using absolute positioning (the controls will appear in different places because we're not using a fancy layout manager):
from happygui.controls import *
MAIN_WINDOW = Window(width="500px", height="350px",
my_label=Label(text="What's your name kiddo?", bold=True, align="center", x="10px", y="10px", width="300px", height="100px"),
my_edit=EditBox(placeholder="", x="10px", y="110px", width="300px", height="100px"),
my_btn=Button(text="CLICK ME!", on_click=Handler('module.file.btn_clicked'), x="10px", y="210px", width="300px", height="100px"),
)
MAIN_WINDOW.show()
def btn_clicked(sender): # could easily be in a handlers.py file
name = MAIN_WINDOW.my_edit.text
# same thing: name = sender.parent.my_edit.text
# best practice, immune to structure change: MAIN_WINDOW.find('my_edit').text
MessageBox("Your name is '%s'" % ()).show(modal=True)
I'm not entirely sure yet if this is a super great approach, but I definitely think it's on the right path. I don't have time to explore this idea more, but if someone took this up as a project, I would love them.
Declarative is not necessarily more (or less) pythonic than functional IMHO. I think a layered approach would be the best (from buttom up):
A native layer that accepts and returns python data types.
A functional dynamic layer.
One or more declarative/object-oriented layers.
Similar to Elixir + SQLAlchemy.