**jms:** *(ran /clear)* describe Touchdesigner-Python as a bootstrapping framework, a command line utility (either .bat or python file) that runs from the command line and generates a git repository containing a touchdesigner file with the minimum necessary internal components to load python startup dat, which then creates nodes and configures the node network in touchdesigner. **Claude:** Now I'll rewrite both pages plus the two index entries. Now the two index entries, whose descriptions must match: Both pages now describe the project as you framed it, with matching descriptions propagated to frontmatter and both index entries. **[160.0010 - TouchDesigner-Python](100-Projects/160%20-%20Software/0010%20-%20TouchDesigner-Python.md)** — narrative page. Opens with the problem (a `.toe` is an undiffable binary that becomes the only record of how a patch was built), then the inversion: the `.toe` is a thin loader, the project is Python. Describes the CLI (`.bat` wrapper or Python entry point) taking a project name and scaffolding a git repo containing the Python package plus a `.toe` holding only the minimum components needed to reach Python — a startup DAT wired to run on open and pointed at the repo's modules, which then creates operators and configures the network. Added four concrete Tasks for the open design decisions. **[330.0010 - TouchDesigner-Python](300-Code/330%20-%20TouchDesigner/0010%20-%20TouchDesigner-Python.md)** — code-side page. Scope section broken into what the utility generates (initialized repo with package/ignore/README; the minimal `.toe`; the Python source the startup DAT loads). Setup section now expects the CLI invocation and its arguments. Working Notes carries three open questions: whether the `.toe` is a checked-in template binary or built headlessly on first run, how the startup DAT finds the Python modules (`sys.path` vs. project folder DAT vs. external module path), and whether network construction is idempotent or always starts from a cleared root. Both keep the "intentionally small — a reproducible starting point, not a general framework or a node-graph abstraction layer" limit. No new tags introduced, so the tag list needed no update. **jms:** whats your project plan for developing this? **Claude:** Here's how I'd sequence it. Grounding note: PORTALS already externalizes its Python into `DAT/*.py` (`StartupExt.py`, `ControlPanelExt.py`, …), so this framework is really the generalization of a pattern you've already arrived at by hand — that's the thing to encode. ## Two decisions that determine everything else **1. Two Pythons, kept strictly apart.** The CLI scaffolder runs in your system Python (argparse, pathlib, `git init` — pure stdlib, no deps). The generated project's code runs inside TouchDesigner's bundled Python. These never share an interpreter or a requirements file. If the generator ever imports something the generated project needs, the boundary has leaked. **2. The `.toe` is a build artifact, not source.** Everything the loader needs is ~10 lines: an Execute DAT whose `onStart` resolves the repo root from `project.folder`, inserts it on `sys.path`, imports the project package, and calls `build()`. Any logic that creeps into the DAT is logic you can't diff. ## Phases **Phase 0 — build the golden output by hand.** Before writing one line of generator, hand-make in TD exactly what the tool is supposed to emit: minimal `.toe`, one `startup.py`, a network that builds itself on open. This de-risks the whole project, because every genuinely hard problem lives here — how the DAT finds the package, whether `onStart` is the right hook, what TD does with an exception thrown during startup. Freeze the result as the target the generator reproduces. **Phase 1 — the generator.** Templatize that output: `tdpy new <name>` → copy template tree, substitute project name, copy the template `.toe`, `git init`, initial commit. Ship the template `.toe` as a checked-in binary at this stage; it's one small file that changes rarely, and pretending otherwise blocks you for weeks. The `.bat` is a thin wrapper over the Python entry point, not a second implementation. This phase is fully testable outside TD — pytest against a tmp dir, asserting the generated tree, the git repo, and that the package imports cleanly. **Phase 2 — the dev loop.** This is what determines whether you actually use the thing. TD caches imported modules, so an edit in your IDE won't take effect until you handle it: a `reload()` that drops the package out of `sys.modules` and re-runs the build, bound to something you can trigger without restarting TD. Alongside it, error surfacing — TD tends to swallow or bury exceptions raised from DAT callbacks, so wrap the build in a handler that writes a real traceback somewhere you'll see it. **Phase 3 — the build layer.** Only now, and only as thin as it stays useful: `create(parent, type, name, pars, pos)`, connection and layout helpers. Resist the pull toward a full node-graph abstraction — that's the scope creep both pages already warn against. Worth splitting here: the *description* of a network (pure data — types, names, parameters, connections) from the *application* of it to TD (a thin adapter calling `op.create`). The description half is unit-testable on a normal machine; the adapter half isn't, so keep it small. **Phase 4 — idempotent rebuild.** Decide whether the build clears and rebuilds a designated root (e.g. everything under one `/project1/build` COMP, leaving hand-made work outside it untouched) or converges by deterministic naming. Clear-and-rebuild is simpler and I'd start there. **Phase 5 (optional) — headless template regeneration.** A script that launches TD from the command line to rebuild the template `.toe` from code, so the binary stops being the source of truth. Do this only if the template starts changing often enough to hurt. ## Risks worth naming now - **`.toe` version compatibility.** TD files are forward-only — a template saved in a newer build won't open in an older one. Pin and document a minimum build in the README from day one. - **Phase 2 is the real project.** Scaffolding a repo is a day's work; making the edit-reload-rebuild cycle pleasant is the part that decides whether this replaces UI-building for you. - **`project.folder` assumptions** break the moment someone moves the `.toe` out of the repo root. Decide early whether that's supported or explicitly not. Want me to fold this into the Tasks section of [160.0010](100-Projects/160%20-%20Software/0010%20-%20TouchDesigner-Python.md), replacing the four placeholder items I put there? **jms:** yes **Claude:** Done. The plan now lives on [160.0010 - TouchDesigner-Python](100-Projects/160%20-%20Software/0010%20-%20TouchDesigner-Python.md): - **New "Development Plan" section** before Tasks, holding the two architectural decisions (two Pythons kept apart; the `.toe` as build artifact rather than source). - **Tasks** replaced by the six phases, each with its deliverable — hand-built golden output, generator, dev loop, build layer, idempotent rebuild, optional headless regeneration. - **Notes** now carries a Risks subsection (`.toe` forward-only versioning, Phase 2 being the real project, `project.folder` assumptions) and a Precedent subsection linking PORTALS as the hand-built version of the same pattern. On the code-side page I only added a pointer: its three open questions now say the plan lives on the catalog page and these are what it leaves unsettled, so the two pages don't read as competing plans. Both `modified` dates bumped to 2026-09-07; no frontmatter `publish`/`status` touched. **jms:** update and push **Claude:** Now Site Notes' Current Work item: Pushed to `main` as `f17cd00`. **Documentation updated:** - **Session Log** — new `## 2026-09-07` entry at the top, covering the scope reframing and the plan, with the two load-bearing decisions and the reasoning behind the phasing recorded (why hand-building the golden output comes before the generator, and why Phase 2 is the one that decides adoption). - **Transcript** — `transcripts/2026-09-07 - touchdesigner-python-plan.md`, generated via the extraction script from this session's JSONL. - **[010 - Site Notes](010%20-%20Site%20Notes.md)** — the Current Work item now reads as "bootstrap framework," points at the plan, and names Phase 0 as the next step, noting the repo is still empty. **Memory:** no change. Nothing new in conventions this session, and the project's scope, plan, and next step all live in the vault where the "start a new session" briefing already picks them up — writing it to memory would only duplicate the repo. One thing worth knowing: the two index files and both project pages showed as modified at session start, but the diffs against `d29d45f` turned out to be only this session's edits, so nothing uncommitted from last session was lost when I rewrote those pages. **jms:** *(ran /context)* i added a blank TOE file and pushed to origin **Claude:** Empty project, TD 2025.32050 — and the file is fully compressed, no readable strings at all, which is a neat confirmation of the premise the pages are built on. Let me record the new repo state. Recorded on both pages (uncommitted — say the word and I'll fold them into the next commit): **[330.0010](300-Code/330%20-%20TouchDesigner/0010%20-%20TouchDesigner-Python.md)** - Repository now lists contents as of today at `c7d27de`, replacing the stale "empty repo" line. - Setup section filled in where it can be: TD **2025.32050** as the build the file was saved from and therefore the minimum that can open it, plus the two-interpreter split as a standing setup fact rather than just a design decision. - Working Notes: the file is 3,466 bytes with no readable strings in it at all — I checked, and the build number isn't even recoverable from the binary, only from your commit message. That's worth having written down, since "there is no partial diffability to fall back on" is the premise everything else rests on. Also noted it's the Phase 0 *seed*, not the template — the template is this plus the one Execute DAT. **[160.0010](100-Projects/160%20-%20Software/0010%20-%20TouchDesigner-Python.md)** — the version-compatibility risk now names 2025.32050 as the floor, and flags that re-saving the template from a newer build raises that floor silently. Two things you may want to know: PORTALS is on 2025.30060, so the two projects are on different builds — fine as long as the framework's floor stays at or below whatever you actually run. And the seed being *empty* rather than *default* is the right call for a template, but worth confirming it's genuinely bare (no default `project1` container, no perform window setup) before it becomes the thing every generated project inherits. Next concrete step is Phase 0, which needs TouchDesigner and therefore you: add the Execute DAT to a copy of this file, wire `onStart`, save it as the template. I can write the Python side — the startup module it calls into, and the repo layout around it — so it's waiting when you have the DAT in place. Want me to? **jms:** yes. also add a .bat file in the project root that opens vs code to the project, and opens TD to the working TOE file. also a readme. also a python vEnv , and add .vEnv to the gitignore file. if you have errors or questions let me know before continuing. **Claude:** Before I write anything, let me check what's actually on this machine — the `.bat` and the venv both depend on it. TouchDesigner 2025.32050 is installed with Python 3.11.10 bundled. But there's no real system Python on this machine — `python`/`python3` are the Microsoft Store alias stubs that just error, and there's no `py` launcher. Let me test whether TD's interpreter can build a venv. Venv from TD's Python works cleanly, with pip 24.0. Three things worth settling before I write into the repo: **jms:** The user answered: "There's no usable system Python on this machine — `python`/`python3` are Microsoft Store stubs and there's no `py` launcher. What should `.vEnv` be built from?"="stop, i'm going to use tdpyenvmanager to generate the venv first", "Which .toe should the .bat open?"="stop, i'm going to use tdpyenvmanager to generate the venv first", "Should the .bat be tracked in git or treated as per-machine?"="stop, i'm going to use tdpyenvmanager to generate the venv first". Read the answers carefully — they may request clarification, changes, or that you not proceed — and follow what they actually say. **Claude:** Stopping. Nothing was written to the repo — everything so far was read-only inspection, plus one throwaway venv in the scratchpad directory, well outside the project. When you've run tdPyEnvManager, the thing I'll need from you is what it named and where it put the environment. PORTALS' pattern is a `PORTALS_vEnv/` folder holding nothing but a `.gitignore` that ignores everything except itself, which keeps the directory tracked but empty — if tdPyEnvManager produces the same shape here, I'll match that rather than the `.vEnv` you asked for, since the ignore entry has to match the real folder name. Worth flagging: the repo has no `.gitignore` at all yet, so that's part of what I'll be adding. The other two questions are still open and I'll ask them again when you're ready: which `.toe` the `.bat` opens, and whether the `.bat` is tracked or per-machine like `BAT/portals.bat` in PORTALS. One loose end from earlier: the vault-side edits recording `EmptyProject.toe` and the 2025.32050 floor are still uncommitted. **jms:** i added the vEnv: "C:\Users\jms\Documents\wtkns.com\300-Code\330 - TouchDesigner\0010 - TouchDesigner-Python\0010 - TouchDesigner-Python_vEnv" **Claude:** The venv is built from TD's own 3.11.10, with the PORTALS-style self-ignoring `.gitignore` inside it, so it'll stay tracked-but-empty. tdPyEnvManager also left `requirements.txt` and `TDPyEnvManagerContext.json` in the root. Two things I noticed: - **`zmq==0.0.0` in requirements.txt** is the PyPI placeholder package, not a real dependency — it exists only to tell you to install `pyzmq`, which is already on the line above. Installing it is harmless but meaningless; worth deleting the line. - **The repo still has no root `.gitignore`.** The venv ignores itself, but `__pycache__/`, TouchDesigner's `Backup/` folder, and its `*.toe.1`-style incremental saves are all unignored right now. **jms:** Your questions have been answered: "Which .toe should the .bat open?"="Working copy, seed stays pristine (Recommended)", "Should the .bat be tracked in git or per-machine?"="Tracked, paths auto-discovered (Recommended)", "The venv folder is named `0010 - TouchDesigner-Python_vEnv` — tdPyEnvManager took the name from the vault folder, so this repo's numbering prefix comes from the vault, not from the repo itself. Keep it?"="Keep as is". You can now continue with these answers in mind. **Claude:** All three answered — building now. Working copy of the seed first, then the Python side. Imports clean, logging works, and it fails only at the TouchDesigner global — exactly as intended. Now the launcher: Everything is in place. Verified: package compiles and imports under the venv's 3.11.10, `project_root()` resolves correctly through the spaces in the path, and the `.bat`'s discovery logic finds both TouchDesigner and VS Code (dry-run, without launching them). **Created** - `TouchDesignerPython.toe` — byte-identical copy of the seed; `EmptyProject.toe` stays pristine - `open-project.bat` — CRLF line endings, quoted throughout, discovers TD (default path, then a versioned-folder scan) and VS Code (PATH, then two install locations), with `TD_EXE`/`CODE_CMD` overrides and a `pause` on failure so a double-click doesn't vanish - `DAT/StartupExec.py` — the Execute DAT's text, kept as a file so the one thing living inside the binary is still diffable; follows the `DAT/` convention from PORTALS - `tdpy/startup.py` — bootstrap, error surfacing to textport + `logs/startup.log`, and `reload()` - `tdpy/build.py` — clear-and-rebuild of a `generated` container: noise → level → null, positioned and connected - `README.md`, `.gitignore`, `.vscode/settings.json` **The one step that needs you:** add an Execute DAT at the project root, enable its Start parameter, paste in `DAT/StartupExec.py`, save. I can't touch the binary. After that the `.toe` never needs editing again. **Four things to know:** - **Your `.vEnv` gitignore request** — the venv already self-ignores via the `.gitignore` tdPyEnvManager put inside it, which keeps the folder tracked but empty. Listing it in the root `.gitignore` too would untrack that file and break the pattern, so I left it out and wrote the reasoning into the `.gitignore` as a comment. `git add -A` confirms the venv contributes exactly one file. - **`TDPyEnvManagerContext.json` is gitignored** — it hardcodes an absolute `installPath` for this machine. `requirements.txt` stays tracked as the portable record. Easy to reverse if you'd rather commit it. - **`.vscode/settings.json` is beyond what you asked for** — two lines pointing VS Code at the venv interpreter and resolving `import tdpy` from the root. Without it "open VS Code to the project" gets you an editor using the wrong Python. Delete it if unwanted. - **`zmq==0.0.0`** is still in `requirements.txt` — I left your file alone, but that line is the PyPI placeholder, not a real dependency. Untested and unverifiable without TouchDesigner running: the two parameter names in `build.py` (`period`, `monochrome`). They go through a helper that logs an unknown name rather than failing the build, so a wrong guess costs one warning. Nothing committed — the clone has its own remote, so that's your call. Want me to commit it there, and update the vault pages to match? **jms:** on https://derivative.ca/community-post/introducing-touchdesigner-python-environment-manager-tdpyenvmanager/72024 it says "When using the TDPyEnvManager in your projects, and when custom components are relying on third party libraries loaded from side loaded environments, it is preferable that you let the initialization of custom components being handled lazily. i.e. Do not force initialization of components using an Execute DAT or the Init On Start toggle." is this relevant? **Claude:** Worth checking properly rather than reasoning from the quote alone — let me read the article. Yes — relevant, though not breaking anything today. I read the article; the fuller quote is *"The `TDPyEnvManager` should be the first component initializing on start so that the environment is setup before any additional component attempt to import modules from it."* So it's a startup race: TDPyEnvManager is itself a component, and it has to initialize before anything tries to import from the side-loaded environment. Forcing your own initialization early is how you end up in front of it. **Where you stand right now:** safe, by accident rather than design. The DAT snippet imports only `sys`; `startup.py` imports `pathlib`/`sys`/`traceback`; `build.py` imports nothing third-party. Nothing in the startup path touches the venv, so there's no race to lose. **Where it bites:** the first time a project's `build.py` does `import numpy` — and numpy is already in your `requirements.txt`. That's the framework's central premise (the `.toe` opens and Python builds the network) running head-on into the advice. It's an architectural constraint on the framework, not a bug in what's written. The fix is cheap and I'd do it now rather than discover it later: 1. **Get out of the startup callback.** Keep `onStart` doing nothing but the `sys.path` insert, and defer the actual work by a frame: ```python run("import tdpy.startup; tdpy.startup.main()", delayFrames=1) ``` By the time that fires, the first frame has cooked and components have initialized lazily, TDPyEnvManager among them. You keep "open the file and it builds itself" without competing for position during startup. 2. **Make stdlib-only a rule for the bootstrap**, documented rather than assumed: `StartupExec.py` and `startup.py` may never import third-party packages, and project code that needs numpy imports it *inside* `build()`, not at module top level. That keeps the deferral from being the only thing standing between you and an import error. Worth noting this doesn't fully satisfy the article's advice — that would mean not auto-building at all, and making the build explicit or triggered on first use. I don't think that trade is worth it: deferring a frame addresses the actual race, and giving up automatic building would cost the thing the project exists for. Your call if you'd rather be strict about it. Want me to apply both, and add a note to the README's development-loop section explaining the ordering constraint? **jms:** yes. do i need to activate "Load on Start" file parameter for the STARTUP Execute DAT? **Claude:** Let me confirm the Execute DAT's actual parameters rather than answer from memory. Confirmed from the docs — and the answer is: **no, not for `Load on Start`. Yes for `Start`.** They're different parameters on different pages. Applying the deferral now: Now the README — updated snippet, the DAT parameter answer, and a startup-ordering section: Two things surfaced there — one of them yours, one of them my bug: **Your question:** no. **Load on Start** lives on the DAT's *File* page and only matters if you point the DAT's `File` parameter at `DAT/StartupExec.py` instead of pasting the text. The parameter you need is **Start**, on the *Execute* page — that's what makes `onStart()` fire. Different page, different job. If you do wire the file parameters, turn on `Load on Start` *and* `Sync to File`, but leave `Write on Toe Save` off — otherwise saving the project writes the DAT back over the file and the disk copy stops being the source of truth. Both routes are now documented in the README. **Applied:** - `onStart()` now does nothing but the `sys.path` insert and `run("import tdpy.startup; tdpy.startup.main()", delayFrames=1)`. The import is inside the deferred string too, so nothing in the package is touched until the frame has cooked. - Stdlib-only is now a stated rule in both bootstrap modules, with third-party imports belonging inside `build()`. - New **Startup ordering** section in the README quoting Derivative's guidance and saying plainly that this is partial compliance — strict compliance means not auto-building at all, which costs the premise. **Two things I found while checking git state:** **A bug in my `.gitignore`** — I wrote `*.toe.[0-9]*`, but TouchDesigner names incrementals `EmptyProject.1.toe`, digit *before* the extension. The pattern matched nothing. Fixed to `*.[0-9]*.toe`, verified against the real file. **You're building in the wrong file.** `EmptyProject.toe` is now 21,418 bytes with an `EmptyProject.2.toe` incremental beside it — so that's where you've been working. `TouchDesignerPython.toe` is still byte-identical to the pristine 3,466-byte seed. The roles have flipped: the file named "EmptyProject" isn't empty any more, and the one named for the project is. `open-project.bat` also points at `TouchDesignerPython.toe`, so running it right now opens the blank one. I haven't touched either file — you have TouchDesigner open on one of them. When you're at a stopping point, the order that recovers the plan is: 1. In TouchDesigner, **File → Save As** over `TouchDesignerPython.toe`. 2. Then tell me, and I'll restore the seed with `git checkout -- EmptyProject.toe`. Doing that checkout before the Save As would destroy your work, so I'm not running it. Alternatively, if you'd rather just keep building in `EmptyProject.toe`, say so and I'll repoint the `.bat` and rename things to match reality instead. **jms:** i did the save as. i did point the DAT's File parameter at DAT/StartupExec.py instead of pasting the text. **Claude:** Your work landed in `TouchDesignerPython.toe` (21,410 bytes, saved 15:52). Restoring the seed: Seed restored — `EmptyProject.toe` is byte-identical to the committed blob again (3,466 bytes, hash matches), and the tree is clean apart from the new files. Since you wired the File parameter rather than pasting, three things I can't check for you — the `.toe` is fully compressed, no readable strings, so the stored path is invisible from outside: 1. **Make sure the File path is relative.** If you browsed to it, TouchDesigner may have stored the absolute `C:\Users\jms\Documents\wtkns.com\300-Code\...\DAT\StartupExec.py`. That works here and breaks everywhere else, which would undermine the whole point once the generator starts emitting these. The field should literally read `DAT/StartupExec.py`. 2. **`Write on Toe Save` off** — otherwise a project save writes the DAT back over the file. 3. **`Sync to File` on** if you want file edits picked up without a manual reload. And the ordering question I raised earlier is now a live one rather than hypothetical: because you didn't paste the text, the DAT's embedded contents are empty, so if `Load on Start` happens *after* `onStart()` fires, nothing runs at all on first open. `logs/` doesn't exist yet, which tells me the startup path hasn't completed successfully even once so far. The test, now that `open-project.bat` points at the right file: run it, and look for a `generated` container at the root plus a `logs/startup.log`. If both appear, the ordering is fine and the file-backed route works. If nothing happens, paste the snippet into the DAT as well while keeping the File parameter — that isolates it to load ordering rather than a path problem. Tell me how it goes and I'll commit the repo — or fix whatever it turns up first. **jms:** ok i pasted the text into the dat directly. now i will run the .bat **Claude:** Two things before it launches, if you haven't already: - **Save the `.toe` after pasting.** The `.bat` starts a fresh TouchDesigner reading from disk, so an unsaved paste won't be there. - **Close the instance you already have open on that file**, or you'll end up with two TouchDesigner processes on the same `.toe`. What success looks like: - a `generated` container at the root, holding `noise` → `level` → `out` - a new `logs/startup.log` with `[tdpy] startup from ...` followed by `[tdpy] build complete` Two failure modes worth telling apart. If you see `[tdpy] no parameter 'period'` or `'monochrome'` lines, that's just my unverified parameter-name guesses — the helper logs and carries on, and the network still builds. If instead you get `[tdpy] BUILD FAILED` the full traceback is in that log file. And if `logs/` never appears at all, the startup never reached Python — that points at the DAT's `Start` parameter or the deferred `run()`, not at the build. **jms:** <ide_opened_file>The user opened the file c:\Users\jms\Documents\wtkns.com\300-Code\330 - TouchDesigner\0010 - TouchDesigner-Python\open-project.bat in the IDE. This may or may not be related to the current task.</ide_opened_file> i ran the bat. it opened TD. in TouchDesignerPython.toe there are only two nodes, tdpyenvmanager and STARTUP. logs folder was created. **Claude:** Logs folder means Python ran — let me see what it said. The whole chain works — path, deferred `run`, import, and the error surfacing all did their jobs. The failure is precise and it's my bug: TouchDesigner injects `op` into *DAT script namespaces*, not into modules imported from disk. Let me confirm the right accessor before fixing. Confirmed from the docs: *"All td module members and methods are imported when the application launches and are automatically available in scripts, expressions, and the textport"* — DAT scripts, expressions, textport. Not modules imported from disk. Those reach them through the `td` module. Fixed. `tdpy/build.py` now does `import td` inside `build()` and goes through `td.op("/")`, `td.baseCOMP`, `td.noiseTOP` and so on. Importing it lazily keeps the module loading cleanly outside TouchDesigner too, which the smoke test confirms. Documented in a new README section. You don't need to restart — `build.py` is precisely the case `reload()` handles. In the textport: ```python import tdpy.startup; tdpy.startup.reload() ``` Expect `[tdpy] dropped 1 module(s), rebuilding` then `[tdpy] build complete`, and a `generated` container next to your two existing nodes. Any `no parameter 'period'` warnings are harmless — the network still builds. This also gives you the first real test of the development loop itself, since a file edited outside TouchDesigner is being picked up by a running instance. Worth saying: the failure was a good outcome. The traceback pointed at the exact line, the log file was there without the textport being open, and the deferred `run()` and `sys.path` insert had all worked — the only thing broken was the one assumption I couldn't verify without a running TouchDesigner. Two guesses remain in that category, the `period` and `monochrome` parameter names, and they're wrapped so they can only cost you a warning. **jms:** do i need to update the STARTUP DAT? **Claude:** No. `DAT/StartupExec.py` was last written at 16:03, you saved the `.toe` at 16:09, so what you pasted is already the deferred version — and the only file I changed in the fix was `tdpy/build.py`, at 16:15. That one is read from disk each time the build runs. So just the textport line: ```python import tdpy.startup; tdpy.startup.reload() ``` This is the arrangement working as designed, incidentally: the DAT is the single thing whose contents live inside the binary, and it hasn't needed to change since you pasted it. It shouldn't need to again — every subsequent change lands in files on disk. And since your `File` parameter points at `DAT/StartupExec.py`, even if that snippet does change one day, the DAT follows the file rather than needing a re-paste. **jms:** im confused what is the next step? or walk me through using this? **Claude:** Fair — let me lay out where you actually are. ## What you have `TouchDesignerPython.toe` is now a loader, not a project. It holds two nodes: `tdpyenvmanager` and your `STARTUP` Execute DAT. When it opens, STARTUP puts the repo folder on `sys.path`, waits one frame, and calls into `tdpy/startup.py`, which runs `tdpy/build.py` — and *that* is what creates the actual network. Nothing else is meant to live in the `.toe` ever again. ## Right now: one command You haven't run the fix yet. In TouchDesigner, open the textport (Alt+T) and paste: ```python import tdpy.startup; tdpy.startup.reload() ``` If a `generated` container appears containing `noise` → `level` → `out`, the whole thing works end to end and Phase 0 is done. ## Then: the loop this gives you 1. Run `open-project.bat` — VS Code on the repo, TouchDesigner on the `.toe`. 2. Edit `tdpy/build.py` in VS Code. This is where your network is defined now. 3. Run that textport line to rebuild. 4. Repeat. The habit to break: **you no longer save the `.toe`.** Your work isn't in it. You only save it if you change the loader itself, which should be close to never. The `.toe` becoming disposable is the whole point — you could delete it, copy the seed again, paste the snippet back, and lose nothing. ## What "using it" means Right now `build()` makes a meaningless noise → level → null chain. That's a test signal, not a project. To use this for real, you replace the body of `build()` with the network you actually want — `td.op("/")`, `create`, `connect`, positions, parameters. Anything you'd have built by dragging nodes, you write there instead. That's also where you'll find out fast whether this way of working suits you. Building a node graph in code is more typing and less immediate than the UI; what you get back is a project you can diff, review, and rebuild from text. ## After that Two things, in order: 1. **Commit the repo** — nothing is committed yet, so all of today's work is untracked. Say the word. 2. **Phase 1**, the generator: turn what's now sitting in this folder into a template a command-line tool can emit, so a new project is one command instead of the manual paste you just did. Where would you like to go — try the reload first, or shall I commit what's here so it's safe? **jms:** I ran the textport in TD TouchDesigner Build 2025.32050 compile on Wed Dec 10 19:54:50 2025 Python 3.11.10 (heads/3.11-Derivative-dirty:e60cd070d8, Oct 10 2024, 15:55:11) [MSC v.1929 64 bit (AMD64)] [tdpy] startup from C:\Users\jms\Documents\wtkns.com\300-Code\330 - TouchDesigner\0010 - TouchDesigner-Python [tdpy] no parameter 'monochrome' on /generated/noise [tdpy] build complete python >>> import tdpy.startup; tdpy.startup.reload() [tdpy] dropped 1 module(s), rebuilding [tdpy] no parameter 'monochrome' on /generated/noise [tdpy] build complete type:baseCOMP path:/generated python >>> **Claude:** It works — Phase 0 is done. `period` took, `monochrome` was my one wrong guess. Let me get the real name. Fixed — the docs give it as `mono`. Reload once more and you should get a clean run with no warnings: ```python import tdpy.startup; tdpy.startup.reload() ``` **Phase 0 is complete.** Reading your textport output, every piece of the design proved itself: - The `.toe` opened and built its own network with no manual step — `[tdpy] startup from ...` then `[tdpy] build complete` on load. - The deferred `run()` landed after `tdpyenvmanager` without a race. - `reload()` picked up a file I edited *while TouchDesigner was running* — `dropped 1 module(s), rebuilding`. That's the development loop working, and it's the thing that decides whether this is usable day to day. - The tolerant `_par()` helper did exactly its job: a wrong parameter name cost one warning line instead of the whole network. That's twice now that error-handling choices turned a guess into a diagnostic rather than a failure. - `type:baseCOMP path:/generated` — the build returned a real operator. So the loop you now have is: edit `tdpy/build.py` in VS Code → run that textport line → watch the network change. No `.toe` saving. Two things queued up, and I'd do them in this order: 1. **Commit** — nothing in this repo is committed yet. The right moment is now, with a working Phase 0. 2. **Update the vault pages** — `330.0010`'s Setup and Working Notes still describe open questions you've now answered (how the DAT finds the modules: `sys.path` from `project.folder`; the `td`-module constraint; the startup-ordering constraint from tdPyEnvManager, which wasn't on the radar when I wrote that plan). Want me to do both? **jms:** do i need to "import tdpy.startup;" each time? **Claude:** No. After the first time in a session, `tdpy.startup.reload()` on its own is enough — the name `tdpy` stays bound in the textport's namespace, and `reload()` deliberately leaves both `tdpy` and `tdpy.startup` in `sys.modules` (it only drops the submodules below them, which is why it can't reload itself). Two practical notes: - **Keeping the import costs nothing.** Once a module is in `sys.modules`, `import` is a dictionary lookup. The value of the full line is that it's safe to paste into a fresh TouchDesigner without thinking about whether this session has run it yet. - **Up-arrow recalls it.** The textport keeps command history, so in practice you press Up and Enter. If you want it down to one keystroke, that's Phase 2 ergonomics and there are two routes — a Keyboard In DAT bound to a key, or a small rebuild button in a panel. Both mean adding something to the `.toe`, which cuts against keeping it disposable, so it's worth deciding deliberately rather than drifting into it. A middle path: keep the trigger in the `.toe` down to a one-line DAT that calls into Python on disk, the same way `STARTUP` does — the binary gains a hook, not logic. Let me note the shorthand in the README's development-loop section: Documented. Still outstanding whenever you're ready: committing the repo (nothing in it is tracked yet) and updating the vault pages, whose open questions Phase 0 has now answered. **jms:** ok im running the tdpy.startup.reload(), but i dont see any additional nodes being created. should i? **Claude:** That's a real bug and the log gives it away precisely. Look at the last two reloads: ``` [tdpy] dropped 0 module(s), rebuilding [tdpy] no parameter 'monochrome' on /generated/noise ``` `dropped 0`, and it's still reporting `monochrome` — the name I fixed to `mono` some time ago. Your reloads have been re-running **stale code**. So the answer to your question is layered: no, you shouldn't see additional nodes (the build destroys and recreates, so an identical result is correct) — but you also weren't seeing my fix, and that part is my fault. The cause: `from . import build` checks the parent package's attributes *before* consulting `sys.modules`. Dropping the module from `sys.modules` wasn't enough, because `tdpy` still held a `build` attribute pointing at the old module object. First reload dropped it and then quietly reused the stale object; every reload after found nothing left to drop — hence `dropped 0`. Let me actually verify the fix rather than reason about it — I've been wrong twice on things I couldn't test. Reproduced the bug exactly with the old code — `VERSION-1` forever, and the same `dropped 1` → `dropped 0` signature your log shows. Then confirmed the new code returns `VERSION-2`. Diagnosis and fix both verified. **Direct answer to your question:** no, you shouldn't see *additional* nodes. The build is clear-and-rebuild — it destroys `/generated` and makes a new one — so an identical-looking network is the correct outcome. Also worth checking you're looking in the right place: `noise`, `level` and `out` are *inside* the `generated` container, one level down. At the root you'll only ever see three nodes. **You need to restart TouchDesigner once.** This is that honest limitation biting for real: I changed `startup.py`, and `reload()` can't reload the module doing the reloading. Close TouchDesigner and run `open-project.bat`. After the restart the log should read `[tdpy] build complete` with **no `monochrome` line** — that absence is your confirmation the reload machinery is now actually reading from disk. Then, to watch a rebuild do something visible, edit `tdpy/build.py`: ```python _par(noise, "period", 0.5) ``` save, and run `tdpy.startup.reload()`. The noise pattern should get much finer. That's the loop doing its job — and unlike everything so far, it's a change you can see rather than infer from a log. Two things I'd flag about what just happened. The stale-module trap is subtle enough that it would have cost you real time later, presenting as "my edits don't do anything" with no error. And the counter I put in the message purely for tidiness — `dropped N module(s)` — is what made it findable. Both are worth keeping in mind for Phase 2, which is exactly this kind of ergonomics work. **jms:** <ide_opened_file>The user opened the file c:\Users\jms\Documents\wtkns.com\300-Code\330 - TouchDesigner\0010 - TouchDesigner-Python\logs\startup.log in the IDE. This may or may not be related to the current task.</ide_opened_file> ahould the STARTUP node have the code? or should it point at the file ? **Claude:** Good question, and the honest answer is: **not both**, which is what you have now. Two copies of the same code that can silently disagree is the same class of bug we just spent this stretch fixing — the stale module that kept running while the file on disk said something else. If `Load on Start` ever fails to fire in time, the embedded copy runs instead and you get old behaviour with no error. That's exactly the failure mode that's expensive to find. **My recommendation is to point at the file**, provided one thing checks out. It matches the project's thesis — the binary holds a reference, not code — and it means you never re-paste. The risks are that a missing or moved file gives you an empty DAT and a silent no-op, and that the path has to be relative to stay portable. But there's an unknown underneath it that we can settle in about a minute instead of guessing: **does `Load on Start` actually complete before `onStart()` fires?** Right now we can't tell, because you have both — either one would produce the behaviour you've seen. The experiment: 1. I add a distinctive marker line to `DAT/StartupExec.py` — something that prints only if the file's version is what ran. 2. You **don't touch the DAT** and **don't save the `.toe`**. 3. Close TouchDesigner, run `open-project.bat`. If the marker appears in the log, the file was loaded before startup and file-pointing is proven safe — and you can clear the embedded text for good. If it doesn't appear, the embedded copy is what runs, and the right answer is to embed it and treat `DAT/StartupExec.py` as the tracked source that gets pasted once when a project is generated. This isn't just a tidiness question, which is why it's worth the minute: Phase 1's generator has to emit one arrangement or the other, so whatever we learn here gets baked into every project the tool ever produces. Want me to add the marker line? **jms:** <ide_opened_file>The user opened the file c:\Users\jms\Documents\wtkns.com\300-Code\330 - TouchDesigner\0010 - TouchDesigner-Python\DAT\StartupExec.py in the IDE. This may or may not be related to the current task.</ide_opened_file> ok the DAT now points to the file StartupExec.py and Keep in Sync with File is set to true. i have saved the TOE and closed it. reset everything and when you are ready, i will rerun the open-project.bat to see if it worked. **Claude:** Ready. The probe is in place and `logs/` is deleted, so anything that appears is from this run alone. **Go ahead and run `open-project.bat`.** Three outcomes and what each means: | What you see in `logs/startup.log` | Verdict | |---|---| | `PROBE: ran the file version of StartupExec`, then `startup from...` / `build complete` | `Load on Start` fires before `onStart`. File-pointing is proven — that's the arrangement, and the generator will emit it. | | `startup from...` / `build complete` but **no** `PROBE` line | The DAT ran an embedded copy from before your save. File-pointing loses; embed the snippet and treat the file as the tracked source. | | No `logs/` folder at all | The DAT is empty at startup — the file hadn't loaded when `onStart` fired. Same conclusion as above, more emphatically. | That third case is the one worth watching for, since it's the silent failure I was worried about: no error, no log, just a project that quietly does nothing. Note the ordering inside the log — `PROBE` should come *before* `startup from`, since the probe fires first in the deferred script. And you shouldn't see a `monochrome` warning anywhere; if you do, something is still running stale code. **jms:** okay. i ran the bat **Claude:** Probe fired, and in the right order. That settles it — **the DAT should point at the file.** **Answer: point at the file.** Proven rather than assumed — the probe line, which existed *only* in `DAT/StartupExec.py` and never in the DAT's own text, appeared in the log ahead of the normal startup output: ``` [tdpy] PROBE: ran the file version of StartupExec [tdpy] startup from C:\...\0010 - TouchDesigner-Python [tdpy] build complete ``` `Load on Start` beats `onStart` on 2025.32050. Also note the absence of any `monochrome` warning — that confirms the reload fix and the `mono` correction are both live. So the `.toe` now contains no project code at all. It holds a reference to a file, and that's the thesis of the whole project holding up under the one case where it was hardest to guarantee. **Done since your last message:** - Probe removed from `DAT/StartupExec.py`; the DAT will pick that up through Sync to File. - README's **First run** rewritten around file-pointing as *the* route, with an explicit warning against also pasting — two sources that can silently disagree is the failure mode we kept hitting today. - New **Why file-pointing rather than pasting** section recording that the ordering isn't documented by Derivative, that we verified it empirically on 2025.32050, and that the symptom if a future build changes it is a project that opens and does nothing, with a missing `logs/` folder as the tell. - Status and roadmap updated: **Phase 0 done**, Phase 1 current. Phase 0 is genuinely finished. Everything in this repo is still untracked, though — I'd like to commit it now so the working state is safe, then update the vault pages, several of whose "open questions" today answered outright. Shall I? **jms:** <ide_opened_file>The user opened the file c:\Users\jms\Documents\wtkns.com\300-Code\330 - TouchDesigner\0010 - TouchDesigner-Python\logs\startup.log in the IDE. This may or may not be related to the current task.</ide_opened_file> update and push **Claude:** Two repos to handle — the clone (all untracked) and the vault. Starting with the clone, so the vault docs can cite the commit. Clone pushed as `357bccd`. Now the vault pages — several open questions in them were answered today. Now the catalog page — Phase 0 is done, and the plan gained a constraint it didn't anticipate: Now Site Notes, the session log, and the transcript: Now committing the vault: Both repos pushed. **`wtkns/touchdesigner-python` → `357bccd`** — Phase 0. Eleven files: the working `.toe`, the `tdpy` package, `DAT/StartupExec.py`, `open-project.bat`, README, `.gitignore`, VS Code settings, and the venv's self-ignoring `.gitignore` (the folder contributes exactly that one file, as intended). `TDPyEnvManagerContext.json` and the `EmptyProject.2.toe` incremental are correctly ignored. **`wtkns/wtkns` → `f75843a`** — the vault records: - **330.0010** — Setup filled in with the real environment story, and a *Resolved 2026-09-07* section answering the three questions the plan left open, plus sections on startup ordering and the two gotchas (TD globals absent from disk-based modules; `sys.modules` deletion insufficient for reload). - **160.0010** — third architectural decision added (startup ordering, which the plan missed and which came from your tdPyEnvManager catch), phase statuses updated, and a new risk for the undocumented `Load on Start` ordering with its failure signature. - **Session Log** — a `2026-09-07 (2)` entry, and the transcript regenerated at 73 turns covering the whole day. - **Site Notes** — Current Work now names Phase 1 and its blocker. - **Memory** — one new entry recording your "tell me before continuing" instruction and how to apply it, since it changed how this session ran and isn't in CLAUDE.md. Two things I'd flag for next session rather than leave buried: **Phase 1 has a real blocker.** The scaffolder was specified to run in system Python, and there isn't one on this machine. Either install Python 3.11, or drop that decision and run the CLI under TouchDesigner's interpreter — which is pragmatic but couples the two sides the plan deliberately separated. **The transcript filename says `touchdesigner-python-plan`** but now covers the Phase 0 build too. I left it alone because the morning's committed log entry links to that name, and renaming would break the wikilink. Worth knowing if you go looking for the build session later. **jms:** whats the disadvantage of running the CLI under TouchDesigner's interpreter? **Claude:** Four real costs, one of which matters more than the others. **The boundary stops being enforced and becomes a rule you have to remember.** This is the main one. The plan separated the interpreters so that a leak was *impossible*, not merely discouraged. Share an interpreter and it becomes easy — and invisible — for the scaffolder to import something the project environment happens to provide, and it'll work on your machine right up until someone runs it on a fresh clone. Worse, if you ever `pip install` anything for the scaffolder, it lands in TouchDesigner's own `site-packages` under `Program Files`, which affects every TouchDesigner project on the machine, not just this one. **You inherit a Python version you didn't choose.** TD 2025.32050 ships a Derivative-patched 3.11.10. If TD 2026 ships 3.12, your tool's runtime changes because you upgraded an unrelated application. Low risk for stdlib-only code, but it's a version bump you don't control and might not notice. **The invocation isn't portable.** The CLI would need to locate TouchDesigner before it can run — the same discovery dance `open-project.bat` already does — which is an extra failure mode in the one tool that's supposed to work first, on a machine that may have nothing set up yet. **No CI.** Phase 1 was specified as "fully testable outside TouchDesigner." GitHub Actions has no TouchDesigner, so a scaffolder that requires TD's interpreter can't have its tests run there. **But here's the distinction that makes this smaller than it looks:** the coupling is in the *invocation*, not the *code*. If the scaffolder stays stdlib-only, it will run under any Python 3.11 — CI included — and using TD's `python.exe` is just how you happen to launch it locally. So my recommendation is to go ahead, with two guardrails that keep it reversible: 1. **The scaffolder imports only the standard library** — already the plan's rule, now doing double duty. 2. **Never install anything into TouchDesigner's interpreter.** If the scaffolder ever needs a dependency, that's the signal you need a real Python, not a `pip install`. Hold those and switching later costs one line in a `.bat`. Break either and you've quietly merged the two sides the plan separated. Worth adding: "install Python 3.11" is a five-minute job that removes the question permanently. I'd only lean on TD's interpreter if you specifically want the tool to have zero prerequisites beyond TouchDesigner itself — which, for a TouchDesigner scaffolder, is a defensible thing to want. **jms:** ok lets install python [Request interrupted by user] ok lets install python, i'll handle it at the command line. give me the instructions. **Claude:** `winget` is available (v1.29.290) and has `Python.Python.3.11` at 3.11.9. **Install 3.11**, matching TouchDesigner's minor version — the patch difference from TD's 3.11.10 is irrelevant. One language level across the whole project means anything you write runs in both places, which removes a whole category of "works in the CLI, breaks in TouchDesigner" confusion. 3.13 would be fine too, since the scaffolder never runs inside TD; you'd just have to remember that `tdpy/` stays 3.11-compatible. ``` winget install --id Python.Python.3.11 --exact --source winget --accept-source-agreements --accept-package-agreements ``` **Then close and reopen your terminal** — PATH won't refresh in the current one. **Then deal with the Store stubs.** This is the part that bites: `python` and `python3` currently resolve to `C:\Users\jms\AppData\Local\Microsoft\WindowsApps\python.exe`, the aliases that error out. They can keep shadowing the real install depending on PATH order. Check with: ``` where.exe python ``` If a `WindowsApps` path comes up first, turn the aliases off: **Settings → Apps → Advanced app settings → App execution aliases**, and switch off both `python.exe` and `python3.exe`. **Verify:** ``` py -0p py -3.11 --version python --version ``` `py -0p` should list the 3.11 install with its real path. If `py` isn't found, the launcher didn't install — tell me and we'll sort it out. One recommendation for afterwards: invoke the scaffolder as `py -3.11` rather than bare `python`. The launcher is stable and version-explicit; PATH order isn't, as the Store aliases just demonstrated. When it's in, tell me and I'll wire the CLI's `.bat` to it and start Phase 1. Your existing venv doesn't change — it stays TouchDesigner-derived, which is correct for the project side. **jms:** py works, python is not recognized **Claude:** That's a good state, and arguably better than having `python` on PATH. - **Python 3.11.9** at `C:\Users\jms\AppData\Local\Programs\Python\Python311\python.exe`, registered as `py`'s default (`*`) - **pip 24.0** works - `py.exe` is on PATH from `C:\WINDOWS`, which is why it resolves while `python` doesn't — the installer didn't add its own directory, and the Store aliases are gone Nothing is blocked: `py -3.11` runs everything the scaffolder needs, and it's the invocation I'd have recommended anyway. Worth leaving as is — if some tool later insists on a bare `python`, that's one PATH entry to fix, and until then you can't accidentally run the wrong interpreter. One thing the check turned up: you also have an Astral/uv-managed **CPython 3.14.7** registered. It's not the default now, but it's a reason to always write `py -3.11` explicitly in scripts rather than bare `py`, since defaults can shift as you install more. Phase 1 is unblocked. Before I write any of it, three decisions that shape the whole thing: **jms:** Your questions have been answered: "How should the generator be invoked, and where do new projects land?"="new-project.bat <name> [path] (Recommended)", "What should a freshly generated project contain?"="Working skeleton with demo network (Recommended)", "How should the generator be tested?"="pytest as a dev dependency". You can now continue with these answers in mind. **Claude:** All three noted. One design call I'll make rather than ask, because it avoids a bug pattern we've already been bitten by twice today: **this repo *is* the template.** The generator copies `tdpy/`, `DAT/`, and the working `.toe` from its own root rather than keeping a second copy under `scaffold/template/` — two copies that drift is exactly what went wrong with the stale module and the pasted DAT text. Setting up the scaffolder's own environment first: Now the generator itself: 16 tests pass. Now an end-to-end run through the actual `.bat`: Generated project is correct end to end — clean git repo with one commit, launcher and settings substituted, `.toe` byte-identical. Now updating this repo's own docs and ignores: The `.gitignore` is copied verbatim into generated projects, so its comments shouldn't mention the scaffolder — that folder won't exist there. Making the wording work in both contexts: Now the README — Phase 1 changes what this repo *is*: **Phase 1 is built and working.** `new-project.bat MyProject [path]` generates a complete project with a git repo and one commit — verified end to end, not just unit-tested. **What's here:** - `scaffold/` — the generator: `cli.py` (argparse, `--no-git`) and `generate.py` (the testable core). System Python, stdlib only. - `new-project.bat` — wraps `py -3.11 -m scaffold`, with a `PY_EXE` override and a real error if the launcher is missing. - `tests/test_generate.py` — 16 tests, all passing, none of which touch TouchDesigner. - `scaffold_vEnv/` — pytest 9.1.1, pinned in `requirements-dev.txt`, self-ignoring like the other environment. **The design call I made:** the generator copies from this repo's own root rather than a `scaffold/template/` copy. The seams — `TouchDesignerPython.toe`, the `.toe` filename in the launcher, the venv name in the VS Code settings — are literal strings, so `_substitute()` raises if a token is missing rather than silently emitting a project pointing at the wrong file. That's tested. The consequence to keep in mind: **the working `.toe` is the template**, so whatever accumulates in it, every new project inherits. Also fixed something the copying exposed: the `.gitignore` goes into generated projects verbatim, so its comments couldn't mention the scaffolder. Reworded to read correctly in both contexts. **One thing I still can't verify, and it matters more now.** The STARTUP DAT's **File** parameter — is it stored relative (`DAT/StartupExec.py`) or absolute? Every generated project inherits it. If it's absolute, each new project silently reads its Execute DAT source from *this* repo, and the symptom is nearly invisible: the project still runs, because `project.folder` resolves `tdpy` correctly, but the DAT's source comes from the wrong place. The `.toe` is compressed, so I can't read it. Could you open the STARTUP DAT's File page and tell me what the field actually says? If it's absolute, the fix is to retype it as a relative path and re-save — and I'll add it to the template-wiring instructions. Once that's confirmed, this is ready to commit and push, along with the vault updates for Phase 1. **jms:** ok but im confused, why is there EmptyProject.toe and TouchDesignerPython.toe? which one should i be using? **Claude:** Short answer: **always `TouchDesignerPython.toe`.** And you never actually have to choose — `open-project.bat` opens it for you. The two roles: - **`TouchDesignerPython.toe`** — the one you work in. It has the STARTUP DAT wired. It's also what the generator copies into every new project. - **`EmptyProject.toe`** — the blank project you saved from 2025.32050, kept untouched. It's a known-clean starting point if the template ever needs rebuilding from scratch. You never open it. The confusion is my fault, and it's a naming problem rather than a design one. I proposed that split *before* the generator existed, when "the file you work in" and "the file projects are copied from" were different ideas. Phase 1 merged them into one file, and the names never caught up — neither name says which role it plays. Worth knowing for the decision: git history holds no blank version of `TouchDesignerPython.toe` (it already had the DAT at its first commit), so `EmptyProject.toe` is the only blank artifact in the repo. That said, making a fresh blank in TouchDesigner is File → New, Save As — about thirty seconds. **jms:** Your questions have been answered: "How do you want the two .toe files handled?"="Rename the template, drop the blank". You can now continue with these answers in mind. **Claude:** Warning isn't reproducible (it passes clean under `-W error`), so not chasing it. Re-running the real end-to-end path after the rename: Done, and verified end to end after the rename. **The repo now has one `.toe`: `template.toe`.** It's the file you open (via `open-project.bat`) and the file every generated project is copied from. `EmptyProject.toe` is gone, along with two stray incremental saves TouchDesigner had left behind. Updated to match: `open-project.bat`, `scaffold/generate.py`, the README (layout, the template-wiring section, and the "why the `.toe` is nearly empty" passage, which no longer cites a file that doesn't exist), and the launcher's error message, which used to tell you to copy a file that's now deleted. No stale references remain — I grepped. 16 tests pass, and a real `new-project.bat Renamed` run produces a correct project. The template-rebuild instructions now start from **File → New** rather than from the deleted seed, which is the one thing you lost by dropping it. So the answer to your original confusion is now structural rather than documentary: there's only one file, and its name says what it is. Two things still open, unchanged from before: 1. **The DAT's File parameter** — relative or absolute? Every generated project inherits it, and if it's absolute they'll all silently read their Execute DAT source from this repo. Worth a look next time you have `template.toe` open: STARTUP → File page. 2. **Committing.** Phase 1 and this rename are uncommitted in the clone, and the vault pages still describe Phase 1 as the current work rather than done. **jms:** DAT/StartupExec.py, Sync to File is On, Active is On, from Operator Start is On **Claude:** That's the confirmation I needed on the important one: **`DAT/StartupExec.py` is relative**, so every generated project reads its own copy rather than reaching back into this repo. The template is portable. One gap before I finalise the docs: you listed **File**, **Sync to File**, **Active** and **Start** — but not **Load on Start** or **Write on Toe Save**. Both are on the File page, and both matter: - **Load on Start** — the README currently says it and `Start` are both required. But your probe passed without you ever mentioning it, which means **Sync to File** may be doing the work on its own. If Load on Start is off, my instruction is simply wrong and I should document the configuration that's actually verified rather than one I assumed. - **Write on Toe Save** — if this is *on*, saving the project writes the DAT's contents back over `DAT/StartupExec.py`. That's a real data-loss path for the source file, and it'd be silent. Could you check those two toggles and tell me their states? Then I'll correct the wiring instructions to match reality, and we're done with this thread. Everything else is settled and verified: the path is relative, generation works end to end, and 16 tests pass. Still queued once you answer — committing Phase 1 plus the rename to the clone, and updating the vault pages, which still call Phase 1 the current work. **jms:** <ide_opened_file>The user opened the file c:\Users\jms\Documents\wtkns.com\300-Code\330 - TouchDesigner\0010 - TouchDesigner-Python\new-project.bat in the IDE. This may or may not be related to the current task.</ide_opened_file> Load on Start is ON, Write on Toe Save is OFF. But when i turn ON sync to file, both those toggles are greyed out. **Claude:** That's the missing piece — **Sync to File supersedes both**, which is why they grey out. So the verified configuration is simply File + Sync to File, and my instruction to set Load on Start was describing a state you can't actually be in. Corrected everywhere. The wiring instructions now describe the configuration that actually exists: - **Step 3** says set `File` and turn on `Sync to File`, and notes that doing so greys out `Load on Start` and `Write on Toe Save` because Sync supersedes them — so their prior values stop mattering. - The note about `Start` vs `Load on Start` was wrong on both counts; it now contrasts `Start` (Execute page, makes the callback fire) with `Sync to File` (File page, keeps DAT and file identical). - Added something that follows from Sync being two-way: **editing the DAT inside TouchDesigner rewrites `DAT/StartupExec.py` on disk.** That's convenient, but you'd want to know it before typing into the DAT. - The "Why file-pointing" section no longer attributes the verified behaviour to `Load on Start` — the probe proved the file's contents were in the DAT before `onStart` fired, and Sync is what put them there. - `DAT/StartupExec.py`'s own docstring told the reader to enable `Load on Start`; fixed. Worth noting your observation did real work here. The greying-out is the kind of detail no amount of reading the parameter list would have surfaced — the docs list all three as independent toggles, with nothing to say one disables the others. That closes every open thread. Uncommitted in the clone: Phase 1 (the generator, `new-project.bat`, 16 tests, the scaffolder venv), the `.toe` rename and seed removal, and these doc corrections. The vault pages still describe Phase 1 as current work rather than done. Say the word and I'll commit and push both repos. **jms:** im still not sure its working properly. can you walk me through it? **Claude:** Fair — let me check the actual state first rather than hand you steps that assume it's fine. TouchDesigner is closed, and your log already answers part of the question. After I removed the probe there were **two clean runs**: ``` [tdpy] startup from C:\...\0010 - TouchDesigner-Python [tdpy] build complete [tdpy] startup from C:\...\0010 - TouchDesigner-Python [tdpy] build complete ``` No `PROBE` line (it's gone from the file), no `monochrome` warning (that fix is live). So the framework repo itself is working — `template.toe` opens and builds its network. What *hasn't* been proven is the thing Phase 1 added: **a generated project opening in TouchDesigner.** I've verified the generator's output on disk and with tests, but no generated `.toe` has ever been opened. That's the real gap, so let's close it. ## Generate one In a terminal: ``` cd "C:\Users\jms\Documents\wtkns.com\300-Code\330 - TouchDesigner\0010 - TouchDesigner-Python" new-project.bat TestProject "%USERPROFILE%\Documents" ``` Expect `Created C:\Users\jms\Documents\TestProject` and a two-step "Next:" note. ## Open it Run `C:\Users\jms\Documents\TestProject\open-project.bat`. It should open VS Code on that folder and TouchDesigner on `TestProject.toe`. **What working looks like:** 1. At the root: your `STARTUP` DAT, `tdpyenvmanager`, and a **`generated`** container. 2. Inside `generated`: `noise` → `level` → `out`. 3. `C:\Users\jms\Documents\TestProject\logs\startup.log` exists, containing `startup from C:\Users\jms\Documents\TestProject` — note the path, that's the proof it's running its *own* code and not this repo's. ## Then prove the loop Edit `C:\Users\jms\Documents\TestProject\tdpy\build.py`, change `_par(noise, "period", 4)` to `0.5`, save, and in the textport: ```python import tdpy.startup; tdpy.startup.reload() ``` The noise should visibly get finer. ## What I expect might go wrong **The environment.** The tool tells you to create `TestProject_vEnv` with tdPyEnvManager, and I deliberately don't copy `TDPyEnvManagerContext.json` because it hardcodes an absolute path. So a generated project arrives with the `tdpyenvmanager` component but no context file. I don't know what it does in that state — it may sit inert, or complain. Our own code is stdlib-only, so **the network should build regardless**. If it builds but tdPyEnvManager grumbles, that's expected and separate. Try it without creating the venv first — that tells us whether a fresh project works out of the box or needs the environment step before it does anything. Either answer is useful and I'll fix the instructions to match. If `logs/` never appears, stop there and tell me: that means the DAT didn't reach Python in the generated copy, which would point straight at the `.toe` template rather than at anything in the Python. **jms:** logs was generated. everything opened. but there is no 'generated' container. and no 'noise' 'level' or 'out' nodes. the log says: ' [tdpy] startup from C:\Users\jms\Documents\TestProject [tdpy] build complete' **Claude:** The log settles one thing: `build complete` only prints after `build()` returns without raising, so the Python ran and created the container. It didn't fail silently — the node should exist. Which leaves two possibilities, and one textport line tells them apart: ```python op('/generated') ``` **If it prints `type:baseCOMP path:/generated`** — it exists and you simply can't see it. That's my strong suspicion: `build()` places the container at `nodeX, nodeY = 0, 0`, and the generated `.toe` inherits the network editor's saved pan position from the template, which may be nowhere near the origin. Press **H** to home the network view and it should snap into sight, alongside `STARTUP` and `tdpyenvmanager`. **If it prints `None`** — something genuinely differs between this copy and the framework repo, and I'll want: ```python op('/').children ``` to see what's actually at the root. Worth saying why I think it's the view rather than the code: this is the same `build.py`, byte for byte, that gave you `type:baseCOMP path:/generated` in the framework repo a couple of hours ago, and the log shows the identical two-line success here. The one thing that changed is which `.toe` you're looking at, and a `.toe` stores its editor view position. If it turns out to be the viewport, that's a real usability flaw in my code rather than a non-issue — a build you can't find is barely better than one that didn't happen. The fix would be to have `build()` home the view or position the container relative to something visible, and I'd rather fix it than tell you to press H every time. **jms:** it does respond "type:baseCOMP path:/generated" but h does not make it visible. i found generated. it is a sibling to project1, outside the default project1 container. **Claude:** That's the actual bug, and it's mine. TouchDesigner opens a project showing **inside `/project1`**, but `build()` creates its container at the true root `/` — so the network lands as a sibling of `project1`, outside where you're looking. Present, addressable by path, invisible where it matters. Also making the log say *where* it built — this exact confusion is worth designing out: Fixed. Two changes, both prompted by what you found: 1. **`build()` now targets `/project1`**, falling back to the root if it's absent. `BUILD_PARENT` is a constant at the top of `tdpy/build.py`, so it's editable rather than buried. 2. **The log now names the destination** — `build complete at /project1/generated`. Had it said that an hour ago you'd have known immediately where to look, instead of us both concluding nothing happened. 16 tests still pass. **To verify, in this repo** (fastest loop — no regeneration needed): 1. Run `open-project.bat`, then in the textport: `import tdpy.startup; tdpy.startup.reload()` 2. The log should read `build complete at /project1/generated`, and the container should appear inside `project1` where you're already looking. **Then one cleanup before regenerating.** Check whether `template.toe` has a leftover `/generated` at the *root* — from all the earlier builds, saved into the file at some point. If it's there, delete it and save, because the new code builds inside `project1` and will never touch that old one again. Left alone it would ride along into every generated project as a permanent empty artifact. Then delete `C:\Users\jms\Documents\TestProject`, regenerate it, and open it — that's the clean end-to-end proof. Worth noting what this says about the earlier confusion: your very first look at the framework repo reported "only two nodes, tdpyenvmanager and STARTUP," with no `project1` mentioned. I read that as the root being nearly empty and never questioned where `project1` was, which is exactly the assumption that put the build in the wrong place. Your finding it as a sibling is what surfaced it. **jms:** thank you for clarification i will try to be more clear. it appears to be working as expected. I removed the extra container from the template file. please update everything and push the touchDesignerPython repo. when you finish, update and push the wtkns.com repo. generate a new, real, empty project from the template, and try adding code in the new project, 0020 - movie-jukebox. [Request interrupted by user] thank you for clarification i will try to be more clear. it appears to be working as expected. I removed the extra container from the template file. please update everything and push the touchDesignerPython repo. add to my site notes: generate a new, real, empty project from the TD-Python template, and try adding code in the new project, 0020 - movie-jukebox. when you finish, update and push **Claude:** The log confirms it in your own session: `build complete at /project1/generated`. Committing the clone: Clone pushed as `528f59c`. Now the vault — Site Notes first: Now the catalog page's phase statuses: Now the session log entry and transcript: Both pushed. **`wtkns/touchdesigner-python` → `528f59c`** — Phase 1: the generator, `new-project.bat`, 16 tests, the scaffolder venv, the `/project1` build fix, the log now naming its destination, the single `template.toe`, and corrected DAT-wiring docs. **`wtkns/wtkns` → `dc012ee`**: - **330.0010** — Repository and Setup updated through `528f59c`; the "How the `.toe` is produced" question closed; the DAT bullet corrected to say `Sync to File` supersedes the other two toggles; third gotcha added about a build at the true root being invisible where you work. - **160.0010** — Phases 0, 1 and 4 marked done, Phase 2 current; noted the plan's separate template tree was dropped and why; recorded that the two-interpreter decision held in practice. - **Site Notes** — your `0020 - movie-jukebox` item added to Current Work, and the framework item updated to Phases 0 and 1. - **Session Log** — a `2026-09-07 (3)` entry; transcript regenerated at 118 turns covering the whole day. - **CLAUDE.md** — new paragraph under "update and push" documenting the two-repo convention: a cloned code repo under `300-Code` gets committed and pushed to its own remote *first*, so the vault's docs can cite its hash. That happened twice today by improvisation; now it's written down. **No memory file this time.** The one durable thing was that two-repo convention, and it belongs in CLAUDE.md rather than duplicated in memory. On the clarity point — that wasn't on you. "It appears to be working" versus "there's no container" was a precise report; the gap was that I never asked where `project1` was, and I'd told you to look for the container "at the root" while my own code put it somewhere you'd have no reason to look. Your question about which `.toe` to use was the same shape: the confusion was the signal that something was actually wrong. **jms:** what are the remaining steps for the bootstrapping tool? **Claude:** Three phases are done (0, 1, and 4 — clear-and-rebuild landed early). Here's what's actually left, ranked by what I'd do first: **1. Finish Phase 2 — a one-keystroke rebuild.** Right now every iteration is a textport line. Small job, and you'd use it constantly. The design question is where the trigger lives: a Keyboard In DAT or a panel button both mean adding something to the `.toe`, which cuts against keeping it disposable. The middle path is a one-line DAT that calls into Python on disk, the way `STARTUP` does — the binary gains a hook, not logic. **2. Close the "one command" gap.** It isn't quite one command yet: the generator tells you to make the environment with tdPyEnvManager, and a generated project gets no `requirements.txt` either. The generator *could* create the venv from TouchDesigner's `python.exe` and write `TDPyEnvManagerContext.json` itself — it only needs to locate the executable, not import `td`. Worth checking first, though: **does a generated project need the venv at all?** When you opened `TestProject` it built fine, and I don't think you ran tdPyEnvManager. If that's right, the environment is only needed once you want third-party packages, and the instruction should say so rather than implying it's a prerequisite. **3. Phase 3 — the build layer.** Operator creation, connection and layout helpers, splitting the description of a network from its application to TouchDesigner. **4. Phase 5 — headless template regeneration.** Would end the coupling where `template.toe` is simultaneously the working file and the template, so anything accumulating in it is inherited by every project. Only worth it when that actually bites. **5. Housekeeping.** No `LICENSE`, on a public repo. **My recommendation: stop building and go use it.** Your next Site Notes item is `0020 - movie-jukebox`, and that's the right forcing function for Phase 3 — building a real network in code will tell you which helpers you need far better than designing them in the abstract. The plan already warns against the pull toward a general node-graph abstraction, and the surest way to build one nobody needs is to write it before there's a project asking for it. If the textport line irritates you within the first hour of that, do item 1 then. Everything else can wait for evidence. **jms:** <ide_opened_file>The user opened the file c:\Users\jms\Documents\wtkns.com\300-Code\330 - TouchDesigner\0010 - TouchDesigner-Python\tdpy\startup.py in the IDE. This may or may not be related to the current task.</ide_opened_file> can startup.py create a button comp that runs build()? **Claude:** Yes — and it's a better fit than a Keyboard In DAT, because a button created at runtime never touches the binary. Let me check the parameter names rather than guess at them. Yes. And it's the cheapest option, because a button created at runtime never enters the binary — `startup.py` makes it on every launch, you never save the `.toe`, so the file stays as disposable as it is now. Three design points, one of which is a trap: **It must not live inside the build container.** `build()` does clear-and-rebuild on `/project1/generated`. A button in there would destroy itself, mid-callback, as its own click ran. It goes *beside* the build container, at `/project1`, created by startup rather than by build. **It shouldn't live in `startup.py` either** — despite your question, and for a reason today already demonstrated: `startup.py` is the one module `reload()` can't reload. Every tweak while getting the button right would need a full TouchDesigner restart. A small `tdpy/controls.py`, called from `main()`, stays reloadable and keeps `startup.py` to its two jobs. **Shape**, with parameter names confirmed from the docs rather than guessed: - a `buttonCOMP` at `/project1/rebuild` - a `panelexecuteDAT` with `panels` pointed at it, `offtoon` on, `active` on, and callback `onOffToOn(panelValue)` calling `tdpy.startup.reload()` - the DAT's text written from a string in `controls.py`, so the source of truth stays on disk — it's generated, not authored in the binary Two things I'd rather flag than guess at, given the day's track record: - **Which panel value to watch** — `state` or `select`. I'd start with `state` and confirm on first click. It'll be a named constant, set through the same tolerant helper `_par()` uses, so a wrong guess logs a line instead of breaking the build. - **Making it clickable in the network editor.** Setting `button.viewer = True` should render the panel on the node so you can click it where you already are, rather than needing a separate panel pane. That's my expectation, not verified. Worth noting the honest limit: this gives you a click, not a keystroke. If you want an actual key binding, that's a Keyboard In DAT — same runtime-created approach, but it grabs a key globally in TouchDesigner, which is more intrusive. Want me to build it as `tdpy/controls.py`? It's small, and the two uncertainties resolve on your first click. **jms:** yes **Claude:** The in-place edits aren't sticking. Rebuilding that function from clean pieces instead: `controls.py` must be added to what the generator copies, or every generated project breaks on import: Built. `tdpy/controls.py` creates a `rebuild` button at `/project1` on every launch, wired to a Panel Execute DAT calling `reload()`. **To test:** close TouchDesigner, run `open-project.bat`. You should see a `rebuild` button node appear beside `generated`, and the log should say `rebuild button at /project1/rebuild`. Then edit `tdpy/build.py` — change `period` to `0.5` — and click the button. **Three things I did differently from what you asked**, each for a reason worth knowing: - **It's `controls.py`, not `startup.py`.** `startup.py` is the module `reload()` can't reload, so every tweak to the button would need a TouchDesigner restart. This way the button is iterable on. - **It calls `reload()`, not `build()` directly.** Clicking after an edit should pick up the edit; `build()` alone would re-run whatever is already in memory. - **The controls are created from `main()` only, never from `reload()`.** Reload is what the button calls, so recreating the Panel Execute DAT there would destroy it mid-callback. Also folded in: the tolerant parameter setter moved from `build.py` to `startup.set_par()`, since `controls.py` needs it too and a second copy is how drift starts. And **`tdpy/controls.py` is now in the generator's manifest** — without that, every generated project would have crashed on import, since `startup` imports it. Tests updated to catch that class of omission: the layout test and the import smoke test both name `controls` explicitly now. **Two guesses to confirm on your first click**, both flagged in the code: - **`PANEL_VALUE = "state"`.** If clicking does nothing, change it to `"select"` — it's a named constant at the top of `controls.py`, and a wrong value logs `no parameter` rather than breaking anything. - **`button.viewer = True`**, meant to render the panel on the node so it's clickable in the network editor. If the node looks inert, that's the line that's wrong. A failure in any of this can't stop your network from building — `_add_controls()` is wrapped separately from `build()`, so a broken button costs you the button and logs a traceback. **jms:** <ide_opened_file>The user opened the file c:\Users\jms\Documents\wtkns.com\300-Code\330 - TouchDesigner\0010 - TouchDesigner-Python\tdpy\build.py in the IDE. This may or may not be related to the current task.</ide_opened_file> whats the raw textport command to rebuild? **Claude:** ```python import tdpy.startup; tdpy.startup.reload() ``` After the first time in a session, `tdpy.startup.reload()` alone works, and up-arrow recalls it. Two related ones: - `tdpy.startup.build()` — rebuilds without dropping modules, so it will **not** pick up file edits. Only useful for re-running the code already in memory. - `tdpy.controls.ensure_rebuild_button()` — recreates the button if you've been changing `controls.py`. Safe from the textport; just never call it from the button's own callback. **jms:** <ide_opened_file>The user opened the file c:\Users\jms\Documents\wtkns.com\300-Code\330 - TouchDesigner\0010 - TouchDesigner-Python\tdpy\build.py in the IDE. This may or may not be related to the current task.</ide_opened_file> ok, make the button type momentary and viewer active **Claude:** Done. `buttontype` is set to `momentary` — confirmed against the Button COMP docs, which list it as an exact menu value — plus a `rebuild` label. `viewer = True` was already there from the first version. Momentary is the right choice for this: the value goes on while held and off on release, so a click is a clean off-to-on edge. A toggle would leave the button stuck on after the first press and fire nothing on the second. **To pick it up without restarting**, in the textport: ```python import tdpy.startup; tdpy.startup.reload() import tdpy.controls; tdpy.controls.ensure_rebuild_button() ``` The `reload()` drops the stale `tdpy.controls` so the re-import reads your new file; then `ensure_rebuild_button()` destroys the old button and DAT and builds them again with the new parameters. Restarting TouchDesigner does the same thing, since `main()` calls it — the two lines just save you the launch. If the button renders but clicking does nothing, `PANEL_VALUE` is the one to change: `"select"` instead of `"state"`, at the top of `controls.py`. **jms:** <ide_opened_file>The user opened the file c:\Users\jms\Documents\wtkns.com\300-Code\330 - TouchDesigner\0010 - TouchDesigner-Python\tdpy\controls.py in the IDE. This may or may not be related to the current task.</ide_opened_file> set activeViewer property of the button to true, according to https://derivative.ca/UserGuide/OP_Class **Claude:** That's the distinction I was missing: `viewer` is the **Viewer Flag** (render the panel on the node), `activeViewer` is the **Viewer Active Flag** (make it interactive). Rendering it isn't enough to click it. Set, with both flags and a note on why they're distinct — that's an easy one to lose later. Same two lines to pick it up without restarting: ```python import tdpy.startup; tdpy.startup.reload() import tdpy.controls; tdpy.controls.ensure_rebuild_button() ``` If it still doesn't fire on click, the remaining suspect is `PANEL_VALUE = "state"` — try `"select"`. But with the viewer now actually interactive, I'd expect `state` to be right. **jms:** <ide_opened_file>The user opened the file c:\Users\jms\Documents\wtkns.com\300-Code\330 - TouchDesigner\0020 - TDPyMovieplayer\testTDPyProject\open-project.bat in the IDE. This may or may not be related to the current task.</ide_opened_file> update and post **Claude:** He renamed the Site Notes item to `0020 - TDPyMovieplayer` himself — good, that settles the name. First the clone: Clone pushed as `eeaf596`. Now protecting the vault commit — that new folder contains its own git repo: Both pushed. **`wtkns/touchdesigner-python` → `eeaf596`** — the rebuild button, `startup.set_par()`, and `controls.py` added to the generator's manifest with tests covering it. **`wtkns/wtkns` → `eb095fc`** — 330.0010 (the button, plus the `viewer`/`activeViewer` gotcha), 160.0010 (Phase 2 done, Phase 3 next but deliberately waiting), a `2026-09-07 (4)` session log entry, the transcript at 138 turns, and a memory update. **One thing I caught before committing, worth knowing about.** You generated into `300-Code/330 - TouchDesigner/0020 - TDPyMovieplayer/testTDPyProject/`, and the generator runs `git init` — so that folder holds its own repository. A plain `git add -A` would have committed it as an embedded gitlink, the exact fault the vault's `.gitignore` already warns about for clones. Added the entry, and broadened both that comment and CLAUDE.md: the rule is about nested repos under `300-Code`, cloned *or* generated. That's a new standing hazard rather than a one-off — the tool now produces nested repos routinely, so every future generated project under `300-Code` needs the same entry. It's in CLAUDE.md and in memory. **Two things left undone, deliberately:** `0020 - TDPyMovieplayer` has no vault pages yet. By convention it wants a `0020 - TDPyMovieplayer.md` in `330`, an entry in the TouchDesigner index, and a paired catalog page under `100-Projects`. I didn't create them because the catalog page's home is a real decision I shouldn't guess — `160 - Software` fits the framework, but a movie player might belong in `110 - Video Essays` or `140 - Visual Music` depending on what you're building toward. Say which and I'll create all three. Also still open from earlier: whether the momentary button actually fires. You have the code, but I haven't heard whether clicking it rebuilds. **jms:** 1. for 330.0020 no vault pages yet. 2. yes. i still have to set it to viewer active manually, but we can address that later. **Claude:** Good — Phase 2 is verified working, which matters because the README and vault pages now claim it does. On `activeViewer` not sticking: my likely suspect is timing. It's set in the same frame the button is created, and TouchDesigner may initialise the panel afterwards and clobber the flag. That's the same shape as the problem the startup path already solves, so the fix would probably be deferring the flag set by a frame with `run(..., delayFrames=1)` rather than a different property. Worth trying that first when you come back to it — cheap to test, and if it works it's two lines. Leaving 330.0020 without pages, and leaving the flag alone. Both are on the list rather than forgotten: - `0020 - TDPyMovieplayer` needs its three vault pages when you've settled where the catalog page lives. - `activeViewer` needs setting manually after each launch until that's fixed. Neither is written down outside this conversation, though. Want me to add them to Site Notes' Current Work so they survive the session? **jms:** no. add active viewer to 330.0010.00010 [Request interrupted by user] no. add active viewer note to 330.0010.00010 code notes, and the note about vault notes to 330.0020.00010 code notes **Claude:** Two things make that ambiguous enough that I'd rather ask than guess, and they're both structural. `330.0010` and `330.0020` name folders that are **git repositories** — gitignored by the vault, and excluded from Obsidian sync. A `.md` placed inside either one wouldn't sync, wouldn't be tracked by the vault, and would show up as untracked in *that repo's* status, where it could get committed to the wrong remote. So a literal `330.0010.00010` nested notes page can't live where the numbering implies. Also, `00010 - TouchDesigner Notes.md` already exists in `330` as the folder-level notes, so a per-project notes file needs a number that doesn't collide with it. **jms:** Your questions have been answered: "Where should per-project code notes live, given the project folders are gitignored repositories?"="Sections on each project's page (Recommended)", "Creating 330.0020's page conflicts slightly with leaving it without vault pages — how far should I go?"="Notes only, nothing else (Recommended)". You can now continue with these answers in mind. **Claude:** Now the `330.0020` page — notes only, draft, no index entry or catalog page: Both notes added. **`330.0010`** — new **Open issues** section at the end of Working Notes recording that `activeViewer` doesn't stick when set from code: the button works, but the flag needs switching on by hand each launch, so the session's first click hits an inert panel. It carries the untested hypothesis (set in the same frame the node is created, cleared when TouchDesigner initialises the panel afterwards) and the likely fix (defer a frame with `run(..., delayFrames=1)`, the same trick the startup path uses) so whoever picks it up isn't starting cold. **`330.0020 - TDPyMovieplayer.md`** — new, `status: draft`, `publish: false`. Scope left explicitly unwritten. Records `testTDPyProject/` at `e90f8b3` with no remote, and why the folder is gitignored. Its Open issues section notes the two missing pages and *why* they're missing — that the catalog page's home is undecided between `160 - Software` and the medium-based options — so it reads as deferred rather than overlooked. Deliberately not done, per your answer: no entry in the `330` index, no catalog page under `100-Projects`. Both uncommitted. Want them pushed, or left in the working tree until you've looked? **jms:** update and post everything **Claude:** Framework clone is clean and already pushed. Vault next — session log and transcript: