using namespace whereveryourcomponents;
the components arenāt namespace
'd, and they did not need to be for 0.6 - they likely shouldnāt need to be for 1.0 either.
the issue is occurring at load time, which should use pluginInstance
as defined in each pluginās init()
, and thus load from their own resources directory. the resource directory itself seems to be getting confused.
editing to add:
when I add debugging to the Widget that loads the assets, it displays the incorrect Plugin
:
fprintf(stderr, "Path: %s, Slug: %s\n", pluginInstance->path.c_str(), pluginInstance->slug.c_str());
setPanel(APP->window->loadSvg(asset::plugin(pluginInstance, "res/Mixer.svg")));
output is:
Path: ./plugins/SynthKit, Slug: SynthKit
but this module does not live in SynthKit
. when I drop down to 2 plugins, by eliminating one of the two, the issue goes away:
Path: ./plugins/CharredDesert, Slug: CharredDesert
ah, I found the issue - pluginInstance
was being overwritten, and was not being caught in clang++
.
As of June 12, we have had 17 open-source plugins submitted to the library repository that feeds the v1
Plugin Manager.
See the current status here: https://github.com/VCVRack/library/projects/1
If you know of a plugin that has been ported, encourage the author to submit their v1
plugin to the library repository.
hi @cschol,
i just pushed the changes for our plugins for v1
Source: https://github.com/hdavid/VCVRack-Holon.ist
branch: v1
version: 1.0.0
commit hash: 0d8d756d9af812a0b5d02dac1b936f4696697a7a
should i create a new issue in the tracker or is this one enough ? https://github.com/VCVRack/library/issues/525
cheers
Cool! Just reuse the existing 0.6 issue on Github and I will reopen it.
Hi Everyone.
Iām having trouble migrating my plugins to 1.0. They compile fine, but they crash Rack. I thought this might have had to do with me having messed up something compiling the Rack beta, but using the 1.0 binaries Andrew provided the other day theyāre still bonked.
I feel like Iām just starting to change random stuff, so if anyone can help Iād greatly appreciate it.
EDIT: @Coirt fixed my code and is now my hero.
(If it would help to have the 0.6 sources I can create a new branch on github or something.)
Thanks!
RM
Was easier to fork. Issues should be fixed, I believe they were caused by the deprecated warnings.
e.g.
struct PhaseCzarWidget : ModuleWidget {
PhaseCzarWidget(PhaseCzar *module) : ModuleWidget(module) {
should be
struct PhaseCzarWidget : ModuleWidget {
PhaseCzarWidget(PhaseCzar *module) {
Found this thread today, Iāve started porting southpole-vcvrack in a forked v1 branch here based on the official migration guide. I donāt see it listed in the linked project page, what else needs to be done to start tracking this work?
Did you contact the author of SouthPole to see if he needs the help? In my experience it is a waste of time if the author will not accept a Pull Request of your changes.
I am adding the plugins that are being worked on to the Project Board manually.
Fair enough I can try reaching out. If nothing else itās useful to me!
Created an issue on the southpole tracker here.
@Coirt, thank you!! I am totes in your debt for all the help youāve provided me on this journey.
No worries!
Any chance some one can take a look at the PvC plugin?
I tried contacting the creator several times and asked if he was going to migrate to V1.
But no response.
Would be a waste of such a fine collection of logic modules.
Excellent! Thank you for the help.
gbrandt1 can let us know on Github when a new version of his plugin is available and we will integrate it.
Iāve submitted a PR for Southpole to move to the v1 API. If other plugin authors see this thread and are looking for help migrating Iād be happy to take a look, time permitting otherwise Iāll pick off the next most interesting plugin to migrate!
The author of NonLinear Instruments has said he wonāt be able to port to 1.0 but feel free to fork. So if anyoneās interested:
āHi, thanks for your interest, but Iām afraid Iām much too busy in other things. Sorry ā¦ and feel free to fork !!ā
I wasnāt here for the 0.5 to 0.6 migration. Were the changes significant?
0.6 to 1.0 migration felt like a lot of busywork for almost no benefit (on the plugin side.)
Not sure.
As to the busy work I feel like itās unfortunate, but Andrew is responsible for the overall direction of Rack and if he feels the changes are necessary for the overall good of Rack I think we should give him a bit of slack. Iām fairly sure he didnāt change the API unnecessarily.
Having said that I am truly sympathetic for the amount of changes that plugin developers felt they had to make that didnāt help their plugin get any better and Iāve heard this from more than one developer so not discounting the assessment.