Discussion: Should the engineering GUI be rewritten? #148

Open
Open
Discussion: Should the engineering GUI be rewritten?#148
Labels
enhancementNew feature or request

Description

@pmelanson
pmelanson
opened on Mar 1, 2025

I'm coming back to orbitx after a little hiatus, and taking a fresh look at the engineering GUI code it's a little obtuse. I think this is because I made the decision to go with tkinter, which are the Python bindings for the tk GUI tools, which are a platform-generic way to make windows/forms/all that.

But tkinter is just bindings, so it's a little awkward to use. The options don't have native Python verification, you have to just try stuff and see if it works. Also, native window applications (like a form pops up with "Ok" or "Cancel") are a little 2000s/2010s.

Considering the goal of OrbitX is to

  1. provide simulation tools that are an OCESS-specific blend of realistic but simplistic
  2. be maintainable by OCESS denizens

I think tkinter is an uphill battle to accomplish #2.
In particular, tk/tkinter is old (about as old as I am), so it's not a relevant framework OCESS tinkerers to learn.

The way I see it, there are three options:

  1. Stay the course, using tkinter
    Not ideal, for reasons mentioned above

  2. Switch to a Python-native GUI framework, like PyQT
    This has the benefit of at least sticking with Python, which most of the rest of the codebase is written in

  3. Rewrite engineering in some web technologies like a Javascript framework
    This is possible because I've enforced a gRPC boundary between server/client components of OrbitX; the physics server is written in Python, and so is the flight GUI client, but the flight GUI client communicates via gRPC to the physics server. The engineering client, then, could just as easily be written in a totally different language and communicate over an internal-API via gRPC.

The benefits of #3 I see are:

  • It allows OCESS tinkerers who are more used to web technologies to contribute to OrbitX
  • Web GUIs are perhaps more suited placements of buttons on an SVG background, which is what engineering/power grid looks like it's going to be (doing this with tkinter is a pain, which motivated this whole discussion).

I'm going to ask OCESS denizens this question, which is why I'm writing this issue. Which of options 1, 2, or 3 would you prefer?

In particular, for option 3, do you have a web framework/architecture in mind? I accept ideas on how to re-implement the engineering GUI in a web framework, but I would be particularly overjoyed if you were opinionated enough to also contribute code and PRs (in fact I would gladly set up some coding time together to get you started!).

TL;DR: I'm farming opinions on how to re-implement the engineering GUI for OrbitX, possibly via a web framework/architecture. If I'm going to be the one implementing it, I'll be selective about the opinions, but if a contributor wants to step in I would be more than happy to give you that freedom :)

Activity

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    enhancementNew feature or request

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions

      , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Add copy buttons to all 
       blocks\n(function() {\n function addCopyButtons() {\n document.querySelectorAll('pre code').forEach(function(codeBlock) {\n if (codeBlock.parentElement.hasAttribute('data-copy-added')) return;\n codeBlock.parentElement.setAttribute('data-copy-added', 'true');\n \n var btn = document.createElement('button');\n btn.textContent = 'Copy';\n btn.style.cssText = 'position:absolute;top:4px;right:4px;padding:2px 8px;font-size:11px;background:#4ecdc4;border:none;border-radius:4px;color:#1a1a2e;cursor:pointer;opacity:0.7;transition:opacity 0.2s;';\n btn.onmouseover = function() { this.style.opacity = '1'; };\n btn.onmouseout = function() { this.style.opacity = '0.7'; };\n btn.onclick = function() {\n navigator.clipboard.writeText(codeBlock.textContent).then(function() {\n btn.textContent = 'Copied!';\n setTimeout(function() { btn.textContent = 'Copy'; }, 1500);\n });\n };\n codeBlock.parentElement.style.position = 'relative';\n codeBlock.parentElement.appendChild(btn);\n });\n }\n \n addCopyButtons();\n \n // Re-run on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(addCopyButtons);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "github.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "github\\.com" + '

      Skip to content
      Discussion: Should the engineering GUI be rewritten? #148
      Open
      Open
      Discussion: Should the engineering GUI be rewritten?#148
      Labels
      enhancementNew feature or request
      Description
      @pmelanson
      pmelanson
      opened on Mar 1, 2025
      I'm coming back to orbitx after a little hiatus, and taking a fresh look at the engineering GUI code it's a little obtuse. I think this is because I made the decision to go with tkinter, which are the Python bindings for the tk GUI tools, which are a platform-generic way to make windows/forms/all that.
      But tkinter is just bindings, so it's a little awkward to use. The options don't have native Python verification, you have to just try stuff and see if it works. Also, native window applications (like a form pops up with "Ok" or "Cancel") are a little 2000s/2010s.
      Considering the goal of OrbitX is to
      1. provide simulation tools that are an OCESS-specific blend of realistic but simplistic
      2. be maintainable by OCESS denizens
      I think tkinter is an uphill battle to accomplish #2.
      
In particular, tk/tkinter is old (about as old as I am), so it's not a relevant framework OCESS tinkerers to learn.
      The way I see it, there are three options:
      1. Stay the course, using tkinter
        
Not ideal, for reasons mentioned above
      2. Switch to a Python-native GUI framework, like PyQT
        
This has the benefit of at least sticking with Python, which most of the rest of the codebase is written in
      3. Rewrite engineering in some web technologies like a Javascript framework
        
This is possible because I've enforced a gRPC boundary between server/client components of OrbitX; the physics server is written in Python, and so is the flight GUI client, but the flight GUI client communicates via gRPC to the physics server. The engineering client, then, could just as easily be written in a totally different language and communicate over an internal-API via gRPC.
      The benefits of #3 I see are:
      • It allows OCESS tinkerers who are more used to web technologies to contribute to OrbitX
      • Web GUIs are perhaps more suited placements of buttons on an SVG background, which is what engineering/power grid looks like it's going to be (doing this with tkinter is a pain, which motivated this whole discussion).
      I'm going to ask OCESS denizens this question, which is why I'm writing this issue. Which of options 1, 2, or 3 would you prefer?
      In particular, for option 3, do you have a web framework/architecture in mind? I accept ideas on how to re-implement the engineering GUI in a web framework, but I would be particularly overjoyed if you were opinionated enough to also contribute code and PRs (in fact I would gladly set up some coding time together to get you started!).
      TL;DR: I'm farming opinions on how to re-implement the engineering GUI for OrbitX, possibly via a web framework/architecture. If I'm going to be the one implementing it, I'll be selective about the opinions, but if a contributor wants to step in I would be more than happy to give you that freedom :)
      Activity
      Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
      Metadata
      Metadata
      Assignees
      No one assigned
        Labels
        enhancementNew feature or request
        Type
        No type
        Projects
        No projects
          Milestone
          No milestone
          Relationships
          None yet
          Development
          No branches or pull requests
          Issue actions
          
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Force GitHub README to respect dark mode\n(function() {\n var style = document.createElement('style');\n style.textContent = '\n .markdown-body {\n color-scheme: dark light;\n }\n .markdown-body pre { background: #161b22 !important; }\n .markdown-body code { background: rgba(110, 118, 129, 0.4) !important; }\n .markdown-body table th, .markdown-body table td { border-color: #30363d !important; }\n .markdown-body img { background: #0d1117; }\n .markdown-body blockquote { border-left-color: #8b949e; }\n .markdown-body hr { border-color: #30363d; }\n ';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n})();", "GitHub Dark Mode README Fix");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:GitHub Dark Mode README Fix]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

          Skip to content
          Discussion: Should the engineering GUI be rewritten? #148
          Open
          Open
          Discussion: Should the engineering GUI be rewritten?#148
          Labels
          enhancementNew feature or request
          Description
          @pmelanson
          pmelanson
          opened on Mar 1, 2025
          I'm coming back to orbitx after a little hiatus, and taking a fresh look at the engineering GUI code it's a little obtuse. I think this is because I made the decision to go with tkinter, which are the Python bindings for the tk GUI tools, which are a platform-generic way to make windows/forms/all that.
          But tkinter is just bindings, so it's a little awkward to use. The options don't have native Python verification, you have to just try stuff and see if it works. Also, native window applications (like a form pops up with "Ok" or "Cancel") are a little 2000s/2010s.
          Considering the goal of OrbitX is to
          1. provide simulation tools that are an OCESS-specific blend of realistic but simplistic
          2. be maintainable by OCESS denizens
          I think tkinter is an uphill battle to accomplish #2.
          
In particular, tk/tkinter is old (about as old as I am), so it's not a relevant framework OCESS tinkerers to learn.
          The way I see it, there are three options:
          1. Stay the course, using tkinter
            
Not ideal, for reasons mentioned above
          2. Switch to a Python-native GUI framework, like PyQT
            
This has the benefit of at least sticking with Python, which most of the rest of the codebase is written in
          3. Rewrite engineering in some web technologies like a Javascript framework
            
This is possible because I've enforced a gRPC boundary between server/client components of OrbitX; the physics server is written in Python, and so is the flight GUI client, but the flight GUI client communicates via gRPC to the physics server. The engineering client, then, could just as easily be written in a totally different language and communicate over an internal-API via gRPC.
          The benefits of #3 I see are:
          • It allows OCESS tinkerers who are more used to web technologies to contribute to OrbitX
          • Web GUIs are perhaps more suited placements of buttons on an SVG background, which is what engineering/power grid looks like it's going to be (doing this with tkinter is a pain, which motivated this whole discussion).
          I'm going to ask OCESS denizens this question, which is why I'm writing this issue. Which of options 1, 2, or 3 would you prefer?
          In particular, for option 3, do you have a web framework/architecture in mind? I accept ideas on how to re-implement the engineering GUI in a web framework, but I would be particularly overjoyed if you were opinionated enough to also contribute code and PRs (in fact I would gladly set up some coding time together to get you started!).
          TL;DR: I'm farming opinions on how to re-implement the engineering GUI for OrbitX, possibly via a web framework/architecture. If I'm going to be the one implementing it, I'll be selective about the opinions, but if a contributor wants to step in I would be more than happy to give you that freedom :)
          Activity
          Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
          Metadata
          Metadata
          Assignees
          No one assigned
            Labels
            enhancementNew feature or request
            Type
            No type
            Projects
            No projects
              Milestone
              No milestone
              Relationships
              None yet
              Development
              No branches or pull requests
              Issue actions
              
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Highlight search terms from Google/DuckDuckGo/Bing referrer\n(function() {\n var ref = document.referrer;\n var terms = [];\n \n if (ref.includes('google.com') || ref.includes('duckduckgo.com') || ref.includes('bing.com')) {\n var url = new URL(ref);\n var q = url.searchParams.get('q') || url.searchParams.get('p');\n if (q) {\n terms = q.split(/\\s+/).filter(function(t) { return t.length > 2; });\n }\n }\n \n if (terms.length === 0) return;\n \n var style = document.createElement('style');\n style.textContent = '.userscript-highlight { background: #fbbf24; color: #1a1a2e; padding: 1px 3px; border-radius: 2px; }';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n \n function highlight(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 3) { // text node\n var text = node.textContent;\n var found = false;\n terms.forEach(function(term) {\n var regex = new RegExp('(' + term.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\\]\\\\]/g, '\\\\') + ')', 'gi');\n if (regex.test(text)) {\n found = true;\n var frag = document.createDocumentFragment();\n var parts = text.split(regex);\n parts.forEach(function(part, i) {\n if (i % 2 === 0) {\n frag.appendChild(document.createTextNode(part));\n } else {\n var span = document.createElement('span');\n span.className = 'userscript-highlight';\n span.textContent = part;\n frag.appendChild(span);\n }\n });\n node.parentNode.replaceChild(frag, node);\n }\n });\n } else if (node.nodeType === 1 && node.childNodes) { // element\n var skipTags = ['SCRIPT', 'STYLE', 'NOSCRIPT', 'TEXTAREA', 'INPUT', 'SELECT'];\n if (!skipTags.includes(node.tagName)) {\n Array.from(node.childNodes).forEach(highlight);\n }\n }\n }\n \n highlight(document.body);\n \n // Re-highlight on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n mutations.forEach(function(m) {\n m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 1 || node.nodeType === 3) highlight(node);\n });\n });\n });\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Highlight Search Terms");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Highlight Search Terms]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

              Skip to content
              Discussion: Should the engineering GUI be rewritten? #148
              Open
              Open
              Discussion: Should the engineering GUI be rewritten?#148
              Labels
              enhancementNew feature or request
              Description
              @pmelanson
              pmelanson
              opened on Mar 1, 2025
              I'm coming back to orbitx after a little hiatus, and taking a fresh look at the engineering GUI code it's a little obtuse. I think this is because I made the decision to go with tkinter, which are the Python bindings for the tk GUI tools, which are a platform-generic way to make windows/forms/all that.
              But tkinter is just bindings, so it's a little awkward to use. The options don't have native Python verification, you have to just try stuff and see if it works. Also, native window applications (like a form pops up with "Ok" or "Cancel") are a little 2000s/2010s.
              Considering the goal of OrbitX is to
              1. provide simulation tools that are an OCESS-specific blend of realistic but simplistic
              2. be maintainable by OCESS denizens
              I think tkinter is an uphill battle to accomplish #2.
              
In particular, tk/tkinter is old (about as old as I am), so it's not a relevant framework OCESS tinkerers to learn.
              The way I see it, there are three options:
              1. Stay the course, using tkinter
                
Not ideal, for reasons mentioned above
              2. Switch to a Python-native GUI framework, like PyQT
                
This has the benefit of at least sticking with Python, which most of the rest of the codebase is written in
              3. Rewrite engineering in some web technologies like a Javascript framework
                
This is possible because I've enforced a gRPC boundary between server/client components of OrbitX; the physics server is written in Python, and so is the flight GUI client, but the flight GUI client communicates via gRPC to the physics server. The engineering client, then, could just as easily be written in a totally different language and communicate over an internal-API via gRPC.
              The benefits of #3 I see are:
              • It allows OCESS tinkerers who are more used to web technologies to contribute to OrbitX
              • Web GUIs are perhaps more suited placements of buttons on an SVG background, which is what engineering/power grid looks like it's going to be (doing this with tkinter is a pain, which motivated this whole discussion).
              I'm going to ask OCESS denizens this question, which is why I'm writing this issue. Which of options 1, 2, or 3 would you prefer?
              In particular, for option 3, do you have a web framework/architecture in mind? I accept ideas on how to re-implement the engineering GUI in a web framework, but I would be particularly overjoyed if you were opinionated enough to also contribute code and PRs (in fact I would gladly set up some coding time together to get you started!).
              TL;DR: I'm farming opinions on how to re-implement the engineering GUI for OrbitX, possibly via a web framework/architecture. If I'm going to be the one implementing it, I'll be selective about the opinions, but if a contributor wants to step in I would be more than happy to give you that freedom :)
              Activity
              Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
              Metadata
              Metadata
              Assignees
              No one assigned
                Labels
                enhancementNew feature or request
                Type
                No type
                Projects
                No projects
                  Milestone
                  No milestone
                  Relationships
                  None yet
                  Development
                  No branches or pull requests
                  Issue actions
                  
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Strip utm_, fbclid, gclid, etc. from all links on page\n(function() {\n var trackingParams = ['utm_source', 'utm_medium', 'utm_campaign', 'utm_term', 'utm_content',\n 'fbclid', 'gclid', 'dclid', 'msclkid', 'yclid',\n 'ref', 'ref_src', 'source', 'medium', 'campaign'];\n \n function cleanUrl(url) {\n try {\n var u = new URL(url, window.location.origin);\n var changed = false;\n trackingParams.forEach(function(p) {\n if (u.searchParams.has(p)) {\n u.searchParams.delete(p);\n changed = true;\n }\n });\n return changed ? u.toString() : url;\n } catch (e) {\n return url;\n }\n }\n \n function cleanLinks() {\n document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {\n var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);\n if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;\n });\n }\n \n cleanLinks();\n \n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n mutations.forEach(function(m) {\n m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 1) {\n if (node.tagName === 'A') cleanLinks();\n node.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {\n var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);\n if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;\n });\n }\n });\n });\n });\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Remove Tracking Parameters from Links");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Remove Tracking Parameters from Links]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "youtube.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "youtube\\.com" + '

                  Skip to content
                  Discussion: Should the engineering GUI be rewritten? #148
                  Open
                  Open
                  Discussion: Should the engineering GUI be rewritten?#148
                  Labels
                  enhancementNew feature or request
                  Description
                  @pmelanson
                  pmelanson
                  opened on Mar 1, 2025
                  I'm coming back to orbitx after a little hiatus, and taking a fresh look at the engineering GUI code it's a little obtuse. I think this is because I made the decision to go with tkinter, which are the Python bindings for the tk GUI tools, which are a platform-generic way to make windows/forms/all that.
                  But tkinter is just bindings, so it's a little awkward to use. The options don't have native Python verification, you have to just try stuff and see if it works. Also, native window applications (like a form pops up with "Ok" or "Cancel") are a little 2000s/2010s.
                  Considering the goal of OrbitX is to
                  1. provide simulation tools that are an OCESS-specific blend of realistic but simplistic
                  2. be maintainable by OCESS denizens
                  I think tkinter is an uphill battle to accomplish #2.
                  
In particular, tk/tkinter is old (about as old as I am), so it's not a relevant framework OCESS tinkerers to learn.
                  The way I see it, there are three options:
                  1. Stay the course, using tkinter
                    
Not ideal, for reasons mentioned above
                  2. Switch to a Python-native GUI framework, like PyQT
                    
This has the benefit of at least sticking with Python, which most of the rest of the codebase is written in
                  3. Rewrite engineering in some web technologies like a Javascript framework
                    
This is possible because I've enforced a gRPC boundary between server/client components of OrbitX; the physics server is written in Python, and so is the flight GUI client, but the flight GUI client communicates via gRPC to the physics server. The engineering client, then, could just as easily be written in a totally different language and communicate over an internal-API via gRPC.
                  The benefits of #3 I see are:
                  • It allows OCESS tinkerers who are more used to web technologies to contribute to OrbitX
                  • Web GUIs are perhaps more suited placements of buttons on an SVG background, which is what engineering/power grid looks like it's going to be (doing this with tkinter is a pain, which motivated this whole discussion).
                  I'm going to ask OCESS denizens this question, which is why I'm writing this issue. Which of options 1, 2, or 3 would you prefer?
                  In particular, for option 3, do you have a web framework/architecture in mind? I accept ideas on how to re-implement the engineering GUI in a web framework, but I would be particularly overjoyed if you were opinionated enough to also contribute code and PRs (in fact I would gladly set up some coding time together to get you started!).
                  TL;DR: I'm farming opinions on how to re-implement the engineering GUI for OrbitX, possibly via a web framework/architecture. If I'm going to be the one implementing it, I'll be selective about the opinions, but if a contributor wants to step in I would be more than happy to give you that freedom :)
                  Activity
                  Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
                  Metadata
                  Metadata
                  Assignees
                  No one assigned
                    Labels
                    enhancementNew feature or request
                    Type
                    No type
                    Projects
                    No projects
                      Milestone
                      No milestone
                      Relationships
                      None yet
                      Development
                      No branches or pull requests
                      Issue actions
                      
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Auto-enable theater mode on YouTube\n(function() {\n function tryTheater() {\n var btn = document.querySelector('button[aria-label=\"Theater mode\"], ytd-player #player button[title=\"Theater mode\"]');\n if (btn && !btn.classList.contains('activated')) {\n btn.click();\n }\n }\n \n // Try immediately\n tryTheater();\n \n // Try after navigation (SPA)\n var lastUrl = location.href;\n setInterval(function() {\n if (location.href !== lastUrl) {\n lastUrl = location.href;\n setTimeout(tryTheater, 500);\n }\n }, 1000);\n \n // Also try on player load\n var observer = new MutationObserver(tryTheater);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "YouTube Theater Mode Default");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:YouTube Theater Mode Default]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

                      Skip to content
                      Discussion: Should the engineering GUI be rewritten? #148
                      Open
                      Open
                      Discussion: Should the engineering GUI be rewritten?#148
                      Labels
                      enhancementNew feature or request
                      Description
                      @pmelanson
                      pmelanson
                      opened on Mar 1, 2025
                      I'm coming back to orbitx after a little hiatus, and taking a fresh look at the engineering GUI code it's a little obtuse. I think this is because I made the decision to go with tkinter, which are the Python bindings for the tk GUI tools, which are a platform-generic way to make windows/forms/all that.
                      But tkinter is just bindings, so it's a little awkward to use. The options don't have native Python verification, you have to just try stuff and see if it works. Also, native window applications (like a form pops up with "Ok" or "Cancel") are a little 2000s/2010s.
                      Considering the goal of OrbitX is to
                      1. provide simulation tools that are an OCESS-specific blend of realistic but simplistic
                      2. be maintainable by OCESS denizens
                      I think tkinter is an uphill battle to accomplish #2.
                      
In particular, tk/tkinter is old (about as old as I am), so it's not a relevant framework OCESS tinkerers to learn.
                      The way I see it, there are three options:
                      1. Stay the course, using tkinter
                        
Not ideal, for reasons mentioned above
                      2. Switch to a Python-native GUI framework, like PyQT
                        
This has the benefit of at least sticking with Python, which most of the rest of the codebase is written in
                      3. Rewrite engineering in some web technologies like a Javascript framework
                        
This is possible because I've enforced a gRPC boundary between server/client components of OrbitX; the physics server is written in Python, and so is the flight GUI client, but the flight GUI client communicates via gRPC to the physics server. The engineering client, then, could just as easily be written in a totally different language and communicate over an internal-API via gRPC.
                      The benefits of #3 I see are:
                      • It allows OCESS tinkerers who are more used to web technologies to contribute to OrbitX
                      • Web GUIs are perhaps more suited placements of buttons on an SVG background, which is what engineering/power grid looks like it's going to be (doing this with tkinter is a pain, which motivated this whole discussion).
                      I'm going to ask OCESS denizens this question, which is why I'm writing this issue. Which of options 1, 2, or 3 would you prefer?
                      In particular, for option 3, do you have a web framework/architecture in mind? I accept ideas on how to re-implement the engineering GUI in a web framework, but I would be particularly overjoyed if you were opinionated enough to also contribute code and PRs (in fact I would gladly set up some coding time together to get you started!).
                      TL;DR: I'm farming opinions on how to re-implement the engineering GUI for OrbitX, possibly via a web framework/architecture. If I'm going to be the one implementing it, I'll be selective about the opinions, but if a contributor wants to step in I would be more than happy to give you that freedom :)
                      Activity
                      Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
                      Metadata
                      Metadata
                      Assignees
                      No one assigned
                        Labels
                        enhancementNew feature or request
                        Type
                        No type
                        Projects
                        No projects
                          Milestone
                          No milestone
                          Relationships
                          None yet
                          Development
                          No branches or pull requests
                          Issue actions
                          
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Remove or un-stick sticky/fixed headers that block content\n(function() {\n function unstick() {\n document.querySelectorAll('header, nav, [role=\"banner\"], .header, .navbar, .sticky, .fixed-top, [style*=\"position: fixed\"], [style*=\"position:sticky\"]').forEach(function(el) {\n if (el.style.position === 'fixed' || el.style.position === 'sticky' || \n getComputedStyle(el).position === 'fixed' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'sticky') {\n el.style.position = 'static';\n el.style.top = 'auto';\n el.style.zIndex = 'auto';\n }\n });\n }\n \n unstick();\n \n var observer = new MutationObserver(unstick);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true, attributes: true, attributeFilter: ['style', 'class'] });\n})();", "Kill Sticky Headers");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Kill Sticky Headers]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

                          Skip to content
                          Discussion: Should the engineering GUI be rewritten? #148
                          Open
                          Open
                          Discussion: Should the engineering GUI be rewritten?#148
                          Labels
                          enhancementNew feature or request
                          Description
                          @pmelanson
                          pmelanson
                          opened on Mar 1, 2025
                          I'm coming back to orbitx after a little hiatus, and taking a fresh look at the engineering GUI code it's a little obtuse. I think this is because I made the decision to go with tkinter, which are the Python bindings for the tk GUI tools, which are a platform-generic way to make windows/forms/all that.
                          But tkinter is just bindings, so it's a little awkward to use. The options don't have native Python verification, you have to just try stuff and see if it works. Also, native window applications (like a form pops up with "Ok" or "Cancel") are a little 2000s/2010s.
                          Considering the goal of OrbitX is to
                          1. provide simulation tools that are an OCESS-specific blend of realistic but simplistic
                          2. be maintainable by OCESS denizens
                          I think tkinter is an uphill battle to accomplish #2.
                          
In particular, tk/tkinter is old (about as old as I am), so it's not a relevant framework OCESS tinkerers to learn.
                          The way I see it, there are three options:
                          1. Stay the course, using tkinter
                            
Not ideal, for reasons mentioned above
                          2. Switch to a Python-native GUI framework, like PyQT
                            
This has the benefit of at least sticking with Python, which most of the rest of the codebase is written in
                          3. Rewrite engineering in some web technologies like a Javascript framework
                            
This is possible because I've enforced a gRPC boundary between server/client components of OrbitX; the physics server is written in Python, and so is the flight GUI client, but the flight GUI client communicates via gRPC to the physics server. The engineering client, then, could just as easily be written in a totally different language and communicate over an internal-API via gRPC.
                          The benefits of #3 I see are:
                          • It allows OCESS tinkerers who are more used to web technologies to contribute to OrbitX
                          • Web GUIs are perhaps more suited placements of buttons on an SVG background, which is what engineering/power grid looks like it's going to be (doing this with tkinter is a pain, which motivated this whole discussion).
                          I'm going to ask OCESS denizens this question, which is why I'm writing this issue. Which of options 1, 2, or 3 would you prefer?
                          In particular, for option 3, do you have a web framework/architecture in mind? I accept ideas on how to re-implement the engineering GUI in a web framework, but I would be particularly overjoyed if you were opinionated enough to also contribute code and PRs (in fact I would gladly set up some coding time together to get you started!).
                          TL;DR: I'm farming opinions on how to re-implement the engineering GUI for OrbitX, possibly via a web framework/architecture. If I'm going to be the one implementing it, I'll be selective about the opinions, but if a contributor wants to step in I would be more than happy to give you that freedom :)
                          Activity
                          Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
                          Metadata
                          Metadata
                          Assignees
                          No one assigned
                            Labels
                            enhancementNew feature or request
                            Type
                            No type
                            Projects
                            No projects
                              Milestone
                              No milestone
                              Relationships
                              None yet
                              Development
                              No branches or pull requests
                              Issue actions
                              
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Universal Dark Mode - works on any site\n(function() {\n var enabled = true;\n \n function applyDarkMode() {\n if (!enabled) return;\n \n // Create style element if it doesn't exist\n var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');\n if (!style) {\n style = document.createElement('style');\n style.id = 'universal-dark-mode-style';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n }\n \n // Dark mode CSS - inverts colors but preserves images/video\n style.textContent = '\n /* Invert everything except media */\n html {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n background: #1a1a2e !important;\n }\n \n /* Restore images, videos, iframes, canvas */\n img, video, iframe, canvas, svg, picture, [style*=\"background-image\"] {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n }\n \n /* Preserve specific elements that should not be inverted */\n .no-dark-mode, .no-dark-mode *,\n [data-theme=\"light\"], [data-theme=\"light\"],\n .ace_editor, .ace_editor *,\n .CodeMirror, .CodeMirror *,\n .monaco-editor, .monaco-editor *,\n .markdown-body pre, .markdown-body pre *,\n .highlight, .highlight *,\n pre code, pre code * {\n filter: none !important;\n }\n \n /* Fix common UI elements */\n .modal, .popup, .dropdown-menu, .tooltip, .popover {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n background: #2d2d44 !important;\n border-color: #444 !important;\n }\n \n /* Scrollbars */\n ::-webkit-scrollbar { background: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb { background: #444 !important; }\n ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb:hover { background: #555 !important; }\n \n /* Selection */\n ::selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ::-moz-selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ';\n }\n \n function removeDarkMode() {\n var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');\n if (style) style.remove();\n }\n \n // Toggle with Alt+Shift+D\n document.addEventListener('keydown', function(e) {\n if (e.altKey && e.shiftKey && e.key === 'D') {\n e.preventDefault();\n enabled = !enabled;\n if (enabled) {\n applyDarkMode();\n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Enabled');\n } else {\n removeDarkMode();\n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Disabled');\n }\n }\n });\n \n // Apply on load\n applyDarkMode();\n \n // Re-apply on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n if (enabled && !document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style')) {\n applyDarkMode();\n }\n });\n observer.observe(document.head, { childList: true });\n \n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Loaded - Press Alt+Shift+D to toggle');\n})();", "Universal Dark Mode");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Universal Dark Mode]', __e); }
})();
})();

                              Skip to content
                              Discussion: Should the engineering GUI be rewritten? #148
                              Open
                              Open
                              Discussion: Should the engineering GUI be rewritten?#148
                              Labels
                              enhancementNew feature or request
                              Description
                              @pmelanson
                              pmelanson
                              opened on Mar 1, 2025
                              I'm coming back to orbitx after a little hiatus, and taking a fresh look at the engineering GUI code it's a little obtuse. I think this is because I made the decision to go with tkinter, which are the Python bindings for the tk GUI tools, which are a platform-generic way to make windows/forms/all that.
                              But tkinter is just bindings, so it's a little awkward to use. The options don't have native Python verification, you have to just try stuff and see if it works. Also, native window applications (like a form pops up with "Ok" or "Cancel") are a little 2000s/2010s.
                              Considering the goal of OrbitX is to
                              1. provide simulation tools that are an OCESS-specific blend of realistic but simplistic
                              2. be maintainable by OCESS denizens
                              I think tkinter is an uphill battle to accomplish #2.
                              
In particular, tk/tkinter is old (about as old as I am), so it's not a relevant framework OCESS tinkerers to learn.
                              The way I see it, there are three options:
                              1. Stay the course, using tkinter
                                
Not ideal, for reasons mentioned above
                              2. Switch to a Python-native GUI framework, like PyQT
                                
This has the benefit of at least sticking with Python, which most of the rest of the codebase is written in
                              3. Rewrite engineering in some web technologies like a Javascript framework
                                
This is possible because I've enforced a gRPC boundary between server/client components of OrbitX; the physics server is written in Python, and so is the flight GUI client, but the flight GUI client communicates via gRPC to the physics server. The engineering client, then, could just as easily be written in a totally different language and communicate over an internal-API via gRPC.
                              The benefits of #3 I see are:
                              • It allows OCESS tinkerers who are more used to web technologies to contribute to OrbitX
                              • Web GUIs are perhaps more suited placements of buttons on an SVG background, which is what engineering/power grid looks like it's going to be (doing this with tkinter is a pain, which motivated this whole discussion).
                              I'm going to ask OCESS denizens this question, which is why I'm writing this issue. Which of options 1, 2, or 3 would you prefer?
                              In particular, for option 3, do you have a web framework/architecture in mind? I accept ideas on how to re-implement the engineering GUI in a web framework, but I would be particularly overjoyed if you were opinionated enough to also contribute code and PRs (in fact I would gladly set up some coding time together to get you started!).
                              TL;DR: I'm farming opinions on how to re-implement the engineering GUI for OrbitX, possibly via a web framework/architecture. If I'm going to be the one implementing it, I'll be selective about the opinions, but if a contributor wants to step in I would be more than happy to give you that freedom :)
                              Activity
                              Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
                              Metadata
                              Metadata
                              Assignees
                              No one assigned
                                Labels
                                enhancementNew feature or request
                                Type
                                No type
                                Projects
                                No projects
                                  Milestone
                                  No milestone
                                  Relationships
                                  None yet
                                  Development
                                  No branches or pull requests
                                  Issue actions