Forgive me but I’m a little rusty with my Dynamo: I’m working through an old definition in v1.2 where I’m trying to filter out revision clouds by the sequence / description. None of my usual tricks for filtering, mapping lists seems to be working and I’m stuck with null values and empty lists. I’m also confused by the node that has a selector for revisions that spits out an element id instead of I would expect to be a string. I’m hoping to get this info to populate a list of items that are part of a particular revision sequence.
Any help getting me back on my feet is appreciated.
Use List.GetAtIndex node after GetParameter node. Connect list into List.GetItemAtIndex and Index number will be 153 then use “==” node to filter the revision clouds by sequence. Below is an example
That would certainly do the trick. Thanks Kulkul. Do you also have a suggestion for obtaining that data by the name rather than the list index? The only concern I have is when and if the revisions are added that index value would not necessarily correspond to the one that is desired. That’s where I was trying to use that other Revision Selector Node. I’m just being a little picky, and probably don’t need to be to get things going. Thanks again! I appreciate it a lot! Cheers.
What package did the custom node, “Elements.FilterbyName” come from? Is there an OOTB equivalent?
@Cody_Winchester it is from clockwork package you can install from online package search.
Gotcha. Thank you sir! I appreciate it!
One more thing…while I’ve pretty much gotten this to work, I’ve still been tinkering with making this process more automatic and use default nodes. One thing I’ve encountered that I can’t wrap my head around is the fact that Dynamo is failing to report true matches to revision items from the nodes shown in the attached image. Do you by chance have any insight on this? Or is this a potential glitch? Thanks again!
@Cody_Winchester use “Equals” node for filtering elements.
That is the node used as you can see in the image. The data is not being ready correctly for some reason.
@Cody_Winchester You misunderstood, This might give you better idea
I see. Funny, I’ve been able to use the “==” node in the past which also appears in the search when entering “Equals.” Thanks so much again Kulkul. This has been really helpful! I’ll post my overall solution once I have it worked out.