[GH-ISSUE #92] [Feature Request] Use custom command as base command #91

New issue

Closed

opened 2026-02-25 21:32:38 +03:00 by kerem · 5 comments

kerem commented

2026-02-25 21:32:38 +03:00

Owner

Originally created by @Jack1789 on GitHub (Sep 17, 2019).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/clechasseur/pathcopycopy/issues/92

Originally assigned to: @clechasseur on GitHub.

Hello, some minutes ago I wanted to create a new custom command, which should had been based on an already present one, but I couldn't do it. So, it would good if there is the chance of either copying or using as a base command, a previously customized one. That way, a new one have not to be replicated from scratch, in case of just wanting to do some further modifications.

Thanks.

Originally created by @Jack1789 on GitHub (Sep 17, 2019). Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/clechasseur/pathcopycopy/issues/92 Originally assigned to: @clechasseur on GitHub. Hello, some minutes ago I wanted to create a new custom command, which should had been based on an already present one, but I couldn't do it. So, it would good if there is the chance of either copying or using as a base command, a previously customized one. That way, a new one have not to be replicated from scratch, in case of just wanting to do some further modifications. Thanks.

kerem

2026-02-25 21:32:38 +03:00

closed this issue
added the
enhancement
label

kerem commented

2026-02-25 21:32:38 +03:00

Author

Owner

@clechasseur commented on GitHub (Sep 17, 2019):

The "funny" thing is that there is no technical impossibility with having a custom command be the base command of another - it just isn't enabled in the UI because it caused some issues when I developed custom commands in the first place... I'll have to review this and try to remember what the problem(s) was(were).

@clechasseur commented on GitHub (Sep 17, 2019): The "funny" thing is that there is no technical impossibility with having a custom command be the base command of another - it just isn't enabled in the UI because it caused some issues when I developed custom commands in the first place... I'll have to review this and try to remember what the problem(s) was(were).

kerem commented

2026-02-25 21:32:38 +03:00

Author

Owner

@clechasseur commented on GitHub (Sep 18, 2019):

I remembered what the problem is. If a custom command has a NEW custom command as base command, previews won't work properly. This is a bit complex to fix, but I think it's doable. So this will act as a "note to self" 😄

@clechasseur commented on GitHub (Sep 18, 2019): I remembered what the problem is. If a custom command has a NEW custom command as base command, previews won't work properly. This is a bit complex to fix, but I think it's doable. So this will act as a "note to self" 😄

kerem commented

2026-02-25 21:32:38 +03:00

Author

Owner

@clechasseur commented on GitHub (Sep 29, 2019):

I've thought about this some more. In addition to the preview issue, there is also the issue of a command being based off itself (easy to detect and prevent) or of forming a loop of commands (much harder to detect and prevent). This will need some serious thinking on how to implement safeguards for this right.

Leaving this open, but won't work on this in 17.1.

@clechasseur commented on GitHub (Sep 29, 2019): I've thought about this some more. In addition to the preview issue, there is also the issue of a command being based off itself (easy to detect and prevent) or of forming a loop of commands (much harder to detect and prevent). This will need some serious thinking on how to implement safeguards for this right. Leaving this open, but won't work on this in 17.1.

kerem commented

2026-02-25 21:32:38 +03:00

Author

Owner

@clechasseur commented on GitHub (Jan 20, 2020):

This has been implemented and will be part of the next major release (tentatively 18.0).

@clechasseur commented on GitHub (Jan 20, 2020): This has been implemented and will be part of the next major release (tentatively 18.0).

kerem commented

2026-02-25 21:32:38 +03:00

Author

Owner

@Jack1789 commented on GitHub (Jan 20, 2020):

Excellent news!!!

Thanks. :)

@Jack1789 commented on GitHub (Jan 20, 2020): Excellent news!!! Thanks. :)