# \[IGN-5880\]Custom Named code.py files

**URL:** <https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/ign-5880-custom-named-code-py-files/58455>\
**Category:** Ignition\
**Tags:** scripting\
**Created:** [April 14, 2022, 5:59am UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/ign-5880-custom-named-code-py-files/58455 "2022-04-14T05:59:03Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 11\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![kgamble](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/inductiveautomation/user_avatar/forum.inductiveautomation.com/kgamble/32/8019_2.png) [@kgamble](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/kgamble)\
**Post date:** [April 14, 2022, 5:59am UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/ign-5880-custom-named-code-py-files/58455/1 "2022-04-14T05:59:04Z")

</div>

Currently with the way that all of the python files are named `code.py` this can make it a bit of a pain when you are working on a code-heavy project in any external editors.

We do quite a bit of development out of the ignition designer and in vscode, and every file tab being named `code` can be a bit annoying when you have several open.

It would be a great feature to allow the files to have custom names with an additional key in the `resource.json` file something like the following:

```auto
{
  "scope": "A",
  "version": 1,
  "restricted": false,
  "overridable": true,
  "fileName": "MyPythonFile.py",
  "files": [
    "MyPythonFile.py"
  ],
  "attributes": {
    "lastModification": {
      "actor": "kgamble",
      "timestamp": "2022-04-14T05:54:06Z"
    },
    "lastModificationSignature": "7b2471a290269b3e9d45b4f96b42d490cc7c3170226d20a9ad854b5937bdff5e"
  }
}

```

In general resource.json files are a bit of a pain, and maybe a simpler way to do this would be for script files to just be stored as true packages and scripts instead of indirecting them by the script name being the folder name, and having one `resource.json` that monitors a whole list of project scripts, but that’s a request for a different time.

Here is an idea post for the custom named file feature though

> **[Custom named code.py files | Voters | Inductive Automation](https://ideas.inductiveautomation.com/ignition-features-and-ideas/p/custom-named-codepy-files)**

Note, by default if no value was found and `code.py` was the default, this would allow existing projects to continue as currently built, and really just enable this feature for people that would want to take advantage of it.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![paul-griffith](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/inductiveautomation/user_avatar/forum.inductiveautomation.com/paul-griffith/32/37249_2.png) [@paul-griffith](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/paul-griffith)\
**Post date:** [April 14, 2022, 4:28pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/ign-5880-custom-named-code-py-files/58455/2 "2022-04-14T16:28:46Z")

</div>

Would an attribute key be overkill?

It seems like the simplest solution would be to store the code at the same filename as the resource itself is. Then an external editor can just ignore the `resource.json` file.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![kgamble](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/inductiveautomation/user_avatar/forum.inductiveautomation.com/kgamble/32/8019_2.png) [@kgamble](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/kgamble)\
**Post date:** [April 14, 2022, 5:18pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/ign-5880-custom-named-code-py-files/58455/3 "2022-04-14T17:18:24Z")

</div>

Are you describing it with the current folder names as follows:

```auto
.
+--script-python
--------+--MyScript
----------------MyScript.py
----------------resource.json
--------+--MySecondScript
-----------------MySecondScript.py
-----------------resource.json

```

Or directly as files like:

```auto
.
+--script-python
--------MyScript.py
--------MySecondScript.py

```

In my opinion, option 2 would be fantastic, wince it would allow for you to code references to work in the external editor as well, since it would follow a common python structure. So with an ` __init__.py` file you could treat it all as a package and automated testing as well as external editing would be significantly easier. Currently to do this you require some pretty annoying script imports for it to work.  
Like this at the top of your files:

```auto
try:
	system.util
	import MyFolder.MySecondScript as MySecondScript
	is_ignition = True
except (NameError, AttributeError, ImportError):
	""" This is not in Ignition, so we need to import code with file paths added """
	sys.path.append(os.path.abspath(os.path.join(os.path.abspath( __file__ ), os.pardir, os.pardir, os.pardir, os.pardir, 'ignition/script-python')))
	import MyScript.code as MyScript
	import MyFolder.MySecondScript.code as MySecondScript
	is_ignition = False

```

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![paul-griffith](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/inductiveautomation/user_avatar/forum.inductiveautomation.com/paul-griffith/32/37249_2.png) [@paul-griffith](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/paul-griffith)\
**Post date:** [April 14, 2022, 5:23pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/ign-5880-custom-named-code-py-files/58455/4 "2022-04-14T17:23:57Z")

</div>

The latter is basically not going to happen, unfortunately. We’d have to “special case” scripts in our project resource system, which pretty much makes it a non-starter. You _could_ always drop your own (regular Python) code into `user-lib/pylib` on the gateway, and we’ll disseminate it out to clients/designers for you; the downside is that it’s no longer easily editable/viewable inside the designer.

I filed a feature ticket for the former, which wouldn’t _solve_ the pain, but would be an easy change to make for us and at least make things _less_ painful.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![kgamble](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/inductiveautomation/user_avatar/forum.inductiveautomation.com/kgamble/32/8019_2.png) [@kgamble](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/kgamble)\
**Post date:** [April 14, 2022, 5:37pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/ign-5880-custom-named-code-py-files/58455/5 "2022-04-14T17:37:47Z")

</div>

> [@paul-griffith](#):
>
> You _could_ always drop your own (regular Python) code into `user-lib/pylib` on the gateway, and we’ll disseminate it out to clients/designers for you; the downside is that it’s no longer easily editable/viewable inside the designer.

This actually doesn't seem like a terrible idea. One could easily develop the modules there, and then test them externally while not being bound by the constraints of the system. Would files there have access to `system.whatever` functionality when executed inside Ignition? Also would these files be tracked in a gateway backup or removed during an upgrade?

> [@paul-griffith](#):
>
> You _could_ always drop your own (regular Python)

Also, wouldn't this still have to be jython? Or am I missing something that allows this to be valid _python_ 2.7 instead of _jython_ 2.7?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![paul-griffith](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/inductiveautomation/user_avatar/forum.inductiveautomation.com/paul-griffith/32/37249_2.png) [@paul-griffith](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/paul-griffith)\
**Post date:** [April 14, 2022, 5:41pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/ign-5880-custom-named-code-py-files/58455/6 "2022-04-14T17:41:40Z")

</div>

> [@kgamble](#):
>
> Would files there have access to `system.whatever` functionality when executed inside Ignition?

Yes, they'd be executed inside Jython as regular code.

> [@kgamble](#):
>
> Also would these files be tracked in a gateway backup or removed during an upgrade?

`pylib` is included in a backup, yes.

> [@kgamble](#):
>
> Also, wouldn’t this still have to be jython?

Poor choice of words. "regular Python" as in "regular Python package structure" - it will still have to be code able to run in the Jython 2.7 environment.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![kgamble](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/inductiveautomation/user_avatar/forum.inductiveautomation.com/kgamble/32/8019_2.png) [@kgamble](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/kgamble)\
**Post date:** [April 14, 2022, 6:30pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/ign-5880-custom-named-code-py-files/58455/7 "2022-04-14T18:30:49Z")

</div>

> [@paul-griffith](#):
>
> It seems like the simplest solution would be to store the code at the same filename as the resource itself is.

Just a comment for backwards compatibility on this, would it theoretically allow the resource name OR `code.py`?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![paul-griffith](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/inductiveautomation/user_avatar/forum.inductiveautomation.com/paul-griffith/32/37249_2.png) [@paul-griffith](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/paul-griffith)\
**Post date:** [April 14, 2022, 6:36pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/ign-5880-custom-named-code-py-files/58455/8 "2022-04-14T18:36:59Z")

</div>

Yes. Since you could have resources stored in the “old” format, what we’d do is increment the `version` key (and use a different actual file on disk) whenever you open the resource in the designer. Everything else in the system just has to go through the same logic to get the existing resource by name, and that way we can “ratchet” the files to the new configuration seamlessly.

We already do the same trick with named queries, web dev resources, vision windows, etc, in ways that you don’t really need to worry about 🙂

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![kgamble](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/inductiveautomation/user_avatar/forum.inductiveautomation.com/kgamble/32/8019_2.png) [@kgamble](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/kgamble)\
**Post date:** [April 14, 2022, 10:10pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/ign-5880-custom-named-code-py-files/58455/9 "2022-04-14T22:10:31Z")

</div>

> [@paul-griffith](#):
>
> You _could_ always drop your own (regular Python) code into `user-lib/pylib` on the gateway

Second question, as I have thought about this more with my peers. Is there any documentation about how the python libraries restart with the gateway? I know then the last modification time of a python file changes it updates the resource and restarts the gateway scripts, but what about python libraries? Would this require a gateway restart?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![paul-griffith](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/inductiveautomation/user_avatar/forum.inductiveautomation.com/paul-griffith/32/37249_2.png) [@paul-griffith](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/paul-griffith)\
**Post date:** [April 14, 2022, 11:48pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/ign-5880-custom-named-code-py-files/58455/10 "2022-04-14T23:48:53Z")

</div>

I’m pretty sure that things are supposed to reload when we detect a change to the pylib directory.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ryanjmclaughlin](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/inductiveautomation/user_avatar/forum.inductiveautomation.com/ryanjmclaughlin/32/4318_2.png) [@ryanjmclaughlin](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/ryanjmclaughlin)\
**Post date:** [April 16, 2022, 11:37pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/ign-5880-custom-named-code-py-files/58455/11 "2022-04-16T23:37:30Z")

</div>

> [@kgamble](#):
>
> Would this require a gateway restart?

IIRC no. If you mod the pylib, within a relative short period of time it will be picked up and sent to open client/designers, I believe the gateway doesn't need restart either, but forgot that specifically.