Assigning Filters with ScheduleView.AddFilters node by using two Lists

I have two lists being passed along into ScheduleView.AddFilters, one contains a list of ScheduleViews and the other a list of ScheduleFilters. My current issue is I am getting a warning as if I am trying to add over 8 filters to one schedule, where instead, I am trying to assign one per schedule. If I send over the list of ScheduleViews and one ScheduleFilter it works but assigns the wrong filter of coarse.

I do not know if this is the reason but why is the list of ScheduleViews spaced differently to the list of ScheduleFilters?

Should I nix the Node and create a python script node to assign the filters? Am I using the ScheduleView.AddFilters Node incorrectly?

Thank you for your time.

As long as you have the same number of schedules to filters, you could try setting the lacing to longest and see if that works.

BTW…welcome to the community!

Thank you!

I learned about Lacing after I had noticed that this was the cause of a few issues others had but sadly in my cause, none of the Lacing options worked.

I did fix the issue using python but that also had its own weird issues. I figured I could create a new filter and assign the filter within the same for loop but it was adding every filter I created to each schedule I created.

In order to get the python method to work I had to use a for loop and zip the scheduled and filters, which does what I thought my original idea would do. I suspect that there was some issues with the data not being overwritten correctly but I did try to Dispose the data without success.

# Enable Python support and load DesignScript library
import clr
clr.AddReference('ProtoGeometry')
from Autodesk.DesignScript.Geometry import *

# Import RevitAPI
clr.AddReference("RevitAPI")
import Autodesk
from Autodesk.Revit.DB import *

# Import DocumentManager and TransactionManager
clr.AddReference("RevitServices")
import RevitServices
from RevitServices.Persistence import DocumentManager
from RevitServices.Transactions import TransactionManager

doc = DocumentManager.Instance.CurrentDBDocument
uiapp = DocumentManager.Instance.CurrentUIApplication
app = uiapp.Application

# The inputs to this node will be stored as a list in the IN variables.
schedule_views = UnwrapElement(IN[0])
field = ScheduleFieldId(0)

target_definitions = []
target_filters = []

# Place your code below this line

TransactionManager.Instance.EnsureInTransaction(doc)
count = 0

for view in schedule_views:
	target_def = view.Definition
	target_definitions.append(target_def)

for view in schedule_views:
	single_filter = ScheduleFilter(field, ScheduleFilterType.Equal, view.Name)
	target_filters.append(single_filter)
	
for this_def, this_filter in zip(target_definitions, target_filters):
	this_def.InsertFilter(this_filter, 0)
	
	
TransactionManager.Instance.TransactionTaskDone()

# Assign your output to the OUT variable.
OUT = schedule_views

I don’t want to mark this as solved because I would like to know how to correctly use the node but it may not be possible.

Looks like a list levels issue. Set your inputs to Views @L2 and Filters @L1 and it should work.

I believe this node is expecting the filters to be one level deeper in list nesting with the default inputs. Either it’s a single view and a list of filters, or a list of views and a list of lists of filters.

I attempted your solution and it no longer errors but it only sets the value to the first in the filter list. So each view is filtered by the same value. I will mess with this some more tomorrow, Thank you for your time.

EDIT:

I thought the same as you did also and tried a bunch of way to organize the filter list all with no success.

Try @L1 on both then, or flip the L1/L2 around. Just shooting from the hip, would have to pull up a project to see for sure. Doing a list.chop on your filters list at length 1 and using the default inputs without levels should also do the trick to get your filters 1 level deeper than your views.

Sorry for the late response I got busy. List.Chop actually worked and was simpler than my own python solution.

Thank you!