Skip navigation

Lightroom SDK

micahjwalter Calculating status...

Currently Being Moderated

VERSION

Jun 29, 2009 6:02 PM

Hi,

I was trying to set the VERSION number in my Info.lua file as follows:

VERSION = {

1,1,4

but I must be doing this wrong as it keeps showing up as Version 1.0 in the Plugin-Manager. Any examples of how this should be formatted?

-m

1737 Views 11 Replies Latest reply: escouten, Jul 7, 2009 9:06 AM

Replies

Currently Being Moderated

1. Mark J M Wilson,

Jun 30, 2009 2:14 AM in reply to micahjwalter

Report

It was documented on page 21 of the 2.2 SDK manual update and there is an example of syntax in the flickr.lrdevplugin:

VERSION = { major=2, minor=0, revision=0, build=200000, },

You can also specify 'display' to show something different or localise the displayed string.

Hope that helps.

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

2. johnbeardy,

Jul 1, 2009 5:31 AM in reply to Mark J M Wilson

Report

As a follow up, is it possible for the plug-in to detect the version - and therefore use an LrHTTP call to show a "newer version available" message in the Info panel?

I've tried _PLUGIN.version, _PLUGIN.VERSION. Neither of which are documented, and neither of which work.

John

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

3. Mark J M Wilson,

Jul 1, 2009 5:55 AM in reply to johnbeardy

Report

John, I ended up with a long winded solution to that: I store major, minor, revision and build in a table, which I use to set the version info. I can then use the same values to compare to the latest released value on my website.

BTW John, I saw your comment on my tagset issue - thanks and looking at it now.

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

4. johnbeardy,

Jul 1, 2009 6:52 AM in reply to Mark J M Wilson

Report

Thanks Mark, that gives me a way forward. Can't get it to work
though!

John

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

5. Mark J M Wilson,

Jul 1, 2009 7:36 AM in reply to johnbeardy

Report

I just realised that my explination was bad and that LrApplication.versionTable() might do what you want...and I am trying to remember why I am not using versionTable()...I really should write more comments in my code...

I actually store the values in two places - once in info.lua and again in another script, which now makes no sense at all but was probably very sensible last year

EDIT: just realised why - it gives Lightroom's version, not the plug-in's...

Message was edited by: Mark J M Wilson

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

6. johnbeardy,

Jul 1, 2009 7:39 AM in reply to Mark J M Wilson

Report

Isn't that the version of Lightroom?
John

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

7. Mark J M Wilson,

Jul 1, 2009 7:51 AM in reply to johnbeardy

Report

johnbeardy wrote:

Isn't that the version of Lightroom?
John
Yes, my edit must have crossed with your reply. That does explain why it is commented out in my code and replaced with a recreation of the version table.

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

8. escouten,

Jul 6, 2009 2:32 PM in reply to johnbeardy

Report

Those calls aren't documented because they aren't implemented.

There isn't currently a way for a plug-in to look at its Info.lua declaration or its version declaration. I'll interpret this as a feature request for such.

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

9. Matt Dawson,

Jul 6, 2009 8:15 PM in reply to escouten

Report

escouten wrote:

There isn't currently a way for a plug-in to look at its Info.lua declaration or its version declaration.
Not technically true.

Why don't people just do this? My latest plugin uses it and it works.
local info = require 'Info.lua' local versionString = 'Version ' .. (info.VERSION.major or '0') .. '.' .. (info.VERSION.minor or '0')
Sure, Lightroom has to have this in memory already so this is a tad inefficient, but the files are small (and have to be present) so its relatively save to load them again.

Matt

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

10. johnbeardy,

Jul 6, 2009 11:35 PM in reply to escouten

Report

Thanks Eric - that's a correct interpretation.

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

11. escouten,

Jul 7, 2009 9:06 AM in reply to Matt Dawson

Report

D'oh! I stand corrected.

I don't see any problem with this approach.

|
Mark as: