Arrow Script

[rich2005]

I think there will be many scripts and plugins that will never get updated:

This is the error I see:

Error: eval: unbound variable: gimp-image-get-active-vectors

[programmer_ceds]

(09-01-2022, 11:17 AM)vitforlinux Wrote: Today use, for experiments only,  Gimp 2.99.12 flatpak in Linux and latest version of Arrow script not works completely, but no errors into the errors console...
Other scripts updated for Gimp 2.99.8, and working Gimp 2.99.10,  in Gimp 2.99.12 not works, but no errors in console.
I think today update to Gimp 2.99.12 si not a good idea.

Thanks Vit.

(Sorry for my bad english)

I will look at this later today. I think that 2.99.12 breaks a lot of scripts.

[vitforlinux]

(09-01-2022, 12:22 PM)rich2005 Wrote: I think there will be many scripts and plugins that will never get updated:

This is the error I see:

Error: eval: unbound variable: gimp-image-get-active-vectors

No gimp-image-get-active-vectors in Gimp 2.99.12, thanks!
And  no idea to change it.

[programmer_ceds]

(09-01-2022, 02:26 PM)vitforlinux Wrote:

(09-01-2022, 12:22 PM)rich2005 Wrote: I think there will be many scripts and plugins that will never get updated:

This is the error I see:

Error: eval: unbound variable: gimp-image-get-active-vectors

No gimp-image-get-active-vectors in Gimp 2.99.12, thanks!
And  no idea to change it.

I'm just going to look at it.

[programmer_ceds]

The function gimp_image_get_active_vectors() is still defined in gimpimage.c and is still called by other functions. However, it seems to have been dropped from the PDB (over zealous deleting of 'get_active' functions that were being replaced by 'get_selected' functions?).

I have raised an issue on the GIMP gitlab site - I'll report back if/when there is a response.

[programmer_ceds]

I have built 2.99.13 with the gimp-image-get-active-vectors code included. This works if there is a single selected path; if two paths are selected at the same time the function returns -1 (as it does if no paths are selected).

Testing arrow.scm with this version then throws another error later in the processing but I can fix this ready for when the new function is included in gimp.

Jehan has replied to the issue on gimp gitlab and said that he must have forgotten to include the replacement script (gimp-image-get-selected-vectors) and has added a 2.99.14 milestone (don't hold your breath though - I have a merge request that keeps having its milestone moved later each time a new release occurs!).

I suggested that putting the old function back in, with the problem if more than one path is selected, would be better than not having the function at all.

[vitforlinux]

Thanks!
I hope Arrow works good in Gimp 2.99.14 like 2.99.10 without rework.

[BugsBunnySan]

Hi!

I think I found a bug in this script (which is otherwise pretty awesome ):

I've attached an image that shows an arrow with the problem and one where it's fixed and looks good:

   

here's how to reproduce:

1. Create an image
2. Create a new Layer Group and a new Layer inside the group, let's call it Arrows (to draw the arrows in)
3. Resize the Canvas to something bigger than before (using Image->Canvas Size)
4. Create a Path and draw an arrow with the script (with options to not create a new layer and to put the arrowhead at the end of the path, also see attachment for the options I used)

   

The arrow head now looks weirdly thin at the end of the path and there's an additional arrowhead offset to the side.

To fix:
5. Resize the Arrows Layer to image size
6. Draw the same Arrow again, and it's all good.

This in gimp 2.10

Cheers and thanks for the plugin

[programmer_ceds]

(10-07-2022, 09:42 PM)BugsBunnySan Wrote: Hi!

I think I found a bug in this script (which is otherwise pretty awesome ):

I've attached an image that shows an arrow with the problem and one where it's fixed and looks good: ...

I think that I have followed the steps that you list above (with GIMP V2.10.32 and the version of arrow.scm dated 29/7/2021) and the arrow seems to be drawn correctly in both steps 4 and 6. I don't get an extraneous arrow head as a result of step 4.

What are the sizes of the original Arrows layer and the new canvas size? Also rough coordinates for the two points of the path?

[BugsBunnySan]

(10-08-2022, 07:20 PM)programmer_ceds Wrote:

(10-07-2022, 09:42 PM)BugsBunnySan Wrote: Hi!

I think I found a bug in this script (which is otherwise pretty awesome ):

I've attached an image that shows an arrow with the problem and one where it's fixed and looks good: ...

I think that I have followed the steps that you list above (with GIMP V2.10.32 and the version of arrow.scm dated 29/7/2021) and the arrow seems to be drawn correctly in both steps 4 and 6. I don't get an extraneous arrow head as a result of step 4.

What are the sizes of the original Arrows layer and the new canvas size? Also rough coordinates for the two points of the path?

I found what causes it more precisely, as I moved the existing content in the Image->Canvas Size resizing tool (to center it). Sorry, I forgot to mention this in my original post!

Also, if the Arrows layer (created in step 2) is moved about inside the canvas after Image->Canvas Size, that causes the arrowhead to not be drawn where the path ends as well.

If the Arrows layer is not moved from the origin (top left corner of the image), even though it is still smaller than the canvas size, then the arrowhead is in the right position, so maybe the issue is with the layer being offset from the image origin? I tested this just now, and if I move the Arrows layer, e.g., 60 pixels to the right, the arrowhead will also be offset 60 pixels to the right from where the path ends, so my guess is, the Arrows layer offset is added twice to the arrowhead position somehow...

Oh, also, to answer your question: the original Arrows layer (and image) I created as 640x640 in the example, then resized to 720x720 and I then moved the Arrows layer to approximately the middle of the image. (In the image I was working on when I noticed the bug, it was different sizes, which I've since changed further, but it was something like 3k to 4k resolution I think.)