Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Can 'Supported Data Types' be customized? #6338

Open
Deom23 opened this issue Jan 30, 2018 · 5 comments
Open

Can 'Supported Data Types' be customized? #6338

Deom23 opened this issue Jan 30, 2018 · 5 comments

Comments

@Deom23
Copy link

Deom23 commented Jan 30, 2018

When viewing objects in the 'Variable Explorer' pane, can you customize what types of objects are considered 'supported'? I would love to be able to see functions and frame.H2OFrame objects , but I dont want to see all the packages that have been imported / etc.

@CAM-Gerlach
Copy link
Member

This has been an issue for me as well. I've been planning on adding a filter to hide packages/modules/functions in the main Variable Explorer window for some time now; but realistically as its not a bug fix I figure it will have to go in master for Spyder 4, not the 3.x branch.

@CAM-Gerlach
Copy link
Member

Also, this is at least a partial duplicate of #1676 , where this is discussed further, although what I propose to implement is closer to directly fixing this one.

@goanpeca
Copy link
Member

goanpeca commented May 5, 2020

I think the Object Explorer should now cover this use case, while the API is updated.

@goanpeca goanpeca closed this as completed May 5, 2020
@CAM-Gerlach
Copy link
Member

@goanpeca This doesn't actaully have anything to do with support at the level of the variable editors, (e.g. object explorer); this rather is about the ability to customize what gets filtered in the main NamespaceEditor via the selections in the pane options menu. There have been improvements made in that area (excluding callables and modules), but that doesn't address the OP's (admittedly seemingly somewhat niche) usecase, as they apparently do want to see specific custom types and functions but not modules (neither of which are currently possible combinations).

@ccordoba12
Copy link
Member

I agree with @CAM-Gerlach here.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants