[Sidefx-houdini-list] Backslash treated as an escape character

François Duchesneau sidefx at trinix.ca
Wed Jan 30 10:32:52 EST 2008

I agree with both opinions here.

Personally I prefer to create my own script that will either send me an 
email when it creates the dir or deal with different permission etc, in 
shorts, a script that is integrated with my pipeline.

However for a studio that doesn't have particular restricted pipeline 
rules or for individual, the option could be interesting and would hurt 
the actual working. But please SESI never set this option On by default.

In my opinion the big question here is: "Do we want other features first 
instead". I think there are a lot of stuff that have to be done before. 
But this is my opinion and it doesn't necessarily reflect the majority. 
Would it be a good idea to have a list of RFE on which we could vote to 
tell SideFx what are the majority priorities? Maybe it already exists?


Sean Lewkiw wrote:
> All good points.  Our HDA does what it sounds like yours does, and the 
> users can't enter their own file paths and names.  So I maintain that I 
> can be trusted to make sure that the path to which I want to render my 
> images is correct, and that Houdini, knowing what this path is can 
> simply create it, and that's one less bit of code I have to maintain.  
> It's not like Houdini doesn't create other dirs if it needs them, 
> ($HOME/houdini, etc). 
> As an aside, Houdini used to fail with the cryptic warning "Unable to 
> create script or pipe" when a target dir didn't exist.  Now it outputs, 
> "No such file or directory" to the shell which is a big improvement, 
> although the red flag just reports "Command Exit Code 1". 
> Sean
> John Coldrick wrote:
>> On Wednesday 30 January 2008 08:41, Sean Lewkiw wrote:
>>> I was assuming that Francois wants to automate the process of creating
>>> destination render dirs.  Why would it put them in $HOME/.my etc? 
>> 	My point was that if you screw up, it will create your screwup.  If you 
>> formalize the process, as in a script, there's far less liklihood that there 
>> will be a screwup.  I'd rather have the script or houdini slap me in the face 
>> for being an idiot than have houdini blindly create anything I enter and 
>> possibly have missing files that I need to hunt down.   For example, our 
>> rendering script, as part of the process, will check for the existence of 
>> output dirs and create them, all using logic like(python sucks for email 
>> quoting! ;) ):
>> if not (os.path.isdir(os.path.join( os.path.split(options.PIC_DIR)
>> [0] ,'BKUPS'))):
>> 	try:
>> 		os.makedirs(os.path.join( os.path.split(options.PIC_DIR)[0],'BKUPS'))
>> 	except:
>> 		print "Seemed to have some troubles creating", os.path.join( 
>> os.path.split(options.PIC_DIR)[0] ,'BKUPS'), "- check your permissions"
>> 		sys.exit()
>> 	where options.PIC_DIR was nicely assembled using the user's input:
>> 	options.PIC_DIR = os.path.join(JOB,"Pic",options.SCENE,options.LAYER)
>> 	Going through all this is IMHO infinitely superior to falling back on 
>> something the user manually enters over and over again for each job.  I mean, 
>> I hear you, sure it could be an option, it's just something you could turn 
>> off, but it really is a non-standard approach in applications.  It forces a 
>> certain degree of responsibility - you have to make the output dir.  It falls 
>> under the category of the hated 'smart' software model.
>> 	Cheers,
>> 	J.C.

More information about the Sidefx-houdini-list mailing list