You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Dynamo/Revit version: Any really, but realistically latest
What currently happens with bindings can be very confusing for new users and even experienced ones - all the topics where the presentation by Jacob about working with them is testament to this. I appreciate that they have their uses, but most of the time they work against the user's goals. Bindings can also bloat script files, unbeknownst to most users.
Idea: Have a setting in Dynamo which toggles on (or is default behavior set) to remove the bindings from the script when it is closed. Currently it is possible to manually do this in the raw script, but most users would not know how or feel comfortable doing this for risk of damaging their script file. Having the option to auto-flush out bindings from the script would also mean users don't have to remove nodes holding onto bindings or have to run via Dynamo Player for repetitive workflows where bindings may prevent re-runs as easily if run via Player instead.
Alternative idea: Have a dedicated tool which prompts a remove bindings on close which the user enables via the UI whilst in the script. Less invasive vs an overarching setting, and possibly more clear in intent to a user.
Alternative alternative: Have a tool which targets scripts via Dynamo via a file selection interface to flush the bindings. More realistic given you would be out of the file when this runs.
Again, I appreciate bindings have their place - but putting this idea here as I feel it would really benefit the average user, and also give a very quick/easy answer to the 'why is my script doing X and how do I fix it' query which bindings cause often.
Gavin, from what I can tell in Dynamo 2.18.1 (Revit 2024), bindings are automatically removed. I'm not sure exactly what has been implemented but saving a file, before running it, clears all bindings.
Interesting... a strange choice to implement it quietly if so. Personally good news for me, but I know some people had uses for them. Thanks for the heads up, will have a play with it.
To the devs when they see this ticket, if it has in fact been removed then I guess it solves this. Feel free to close it out if so.
Dynamo/Revit version: Any really, but realistically latest
What currently happens with bindings can be very confusing for new users and even experienced ones - all the topics where the presentation by Jacob about working with them is testament to this. I appreciate that they have their uses, but most of the time they work against the user's goals. Bindings can also bloat script files, unbeknownst to most users.
Idea: Have a setting in Dynamo which toggles on (or is default behavior set) to remove the bindings from the script when it is closed. Currently it is possible to manually do this in the raw script, but most users would not know how or feel comfortable doing this for risk of damaging their script file. Having the option to auto-flush out bindings from the script would also mean users don't have to remove nodes holding onto bindings or have to run via Dynamo Player for repetitive workflows where bindings may prevent re-runs as easily if run via Player instead.
Alternative idea: Have a dedicated tool which prompts a remove bindings on close which the user enables via the UI whilst in the script. Less invasive vs an overarching setting, and possibly more clear in intent to a user.
Alternative alternative: Have a tool which targets scripts via Dynamo via a file selection interface to flush the bindings. More realistic given you would be out of the file when this runs.
Again, I appreciate bindings have their place - but putting this idea here as I feel it would really benefit the average user, and also give a very quick/easy answer to the 'why is my script doing X and how do I fix it' query which bindings cause often.
Thread for reference:
https://forum.dynamobim.com/t/bake/86908/9
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: