new: add host as a key in get_product_name - #2001
Open
vincentullmann wants to merge 3 commits into
Open
Conversation
vincentullmann
force-pushed
the
add_host_to_get_product_name
branch
from
August 14, 2026 13:41
7c91ddd to
6a8fdb6
Compare
iLLiCiTiT
approved these changes
Aug 14, 2026
Member
|
@moonyuet or @LiborBatek could you try it out? I think it should work. |
LiborBatek
approved these changes
Aug 17, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.


Changelog Description
added
{host}as a key to be available inget_product_nameAdditional info
It felt strange beeing able to filter profiles by host, but then to not be able to have host as an option in the template itself.
In our case it lead to the creation of multiple profiles for each host:
[ { "product_base_types": ["workfile"], "host_names": ["nuke"], "template": "{product[type]}{Task[name]}Nuke" }, { "product_base_types": ["workfile"], "host_names": ["houdini"], "template": "{product[type]}{Task[name]}Houdini" }, { "product_base_types": ["workfile"], "host_names": ["maya"], "template": "{product[type]}{Task[name]}Maya" }, { "product_base_types": ["workfile"], "host_names": ["substancepainter"], "template": "{product[type]}{Task[name]}SubstancePainter" }, { "product_base_types": ["workfile"], "host_names": ["zbrush"], "template": "{product[type]}{Task[name]}ZBrush" } ]With this change this can be consolidated into a single profile:
[ { "product_base_types": ["workfile"], "host_names": [], "template": "{product[type]}{Task[name]}{Host[name]}" } ]strvs.dictI wasn't 100% sure weather use the string
{host}or dict{host[name]}variantI'e went with the dict version as it feels more in line with how the
productandtaskentities are represented and keeps the door open for other attributes in the future. ({host[label]}or similar in the future forSubstancePainterorZBrush){host}is nice and short and does the job perfectly well right now, but i'm worried we end up having to implement a similar check as the{task}->{task[name]}conversion to migrate templates if we ever decide to change itTesting notes:
{host[name]}or{Host[name]}to a product name template