Is there a fix API script or add-on in order to work on last build version API?

I found so many old add-ons did not work on 2.8 .

But it works to just fix API. Don’t need to change the code logic.

I’m not try to developer, and it’s too hard to do by manual , one API by one , but I suppose to fix

that old add-ons API.

Is there a fix API script or add-on in order to work on last build version API ?

If it has auto replace the last build API is better .


That won’t work - or at least not with a significant amount of work, which is better spent on improving blender as is. Most maintained add-ons are or will be updated at some point.

How to fix API ? All by manual ?

How to know which API changed ?

How to know which API is correct on last build ?

API just a name, no used in last build anymore . it can’t find old api name in last build api list.

Is it working ?

Your are hard to understand.

Sure someone has to look into the code and adapt it for 2.8

The API was free to change until last week, as it’s frozen now most of your concerns vanished.

I believe it’s possible that have a fix old api script or addon instead of by manual to speedup workflow to adjust for last build API, although API was frozen.

Later 2.81, 2.82, 2.9x is coming… dev also need to change api.

Such a script would massively speed up workflow, but kio is right in that this would be a very difficult task. I tried to make a script like this myself a few months ago. The problem was it required a considerable amount of effort just to cover 1 or 2 API changes (not having a deep understanding of python didn’t help). I think I gave up on the idea after I found I was slowly creating a pseudo python interpreter in order to keep my results from being flooded with false positives.

Instead of an add-on updater, I made a big list of API changes I had taken notes on public for others to use as a cheat sheet.

Going from 2.80 to 2.81 will mean more changes, but I don’t think a 2.80 to 2.81 update will be anywhere close to the amount of effort needed to get 2.79 add-ons running in 2.80.


Right… and who maintains this migration code? Personally I would rather a dev work on stabilizing and adding features to core blender rather than make sure some random 2.5 add-ons the author couldn’t even be bothered to update continue to work. Speaking from experience here, writing migration code is a rats nest, and rarely worth the effort outside of enterprise applications (where they have ridiculous amounts of money to throw around).

If you rely on random python scripts you’ve found on the internet, do yourself a favor and learn python. It’s not very hard to learn. If this doesn’t appeal to you, I would either hire a freelance python dev off of fiver, or avoid using third party add-ons entirely.

Good job! At least you speedup a little, although not perfect.

As I’m not coder, still have a good idea. but It’s just a technology problem.

hi, in the script migration from 2.4 series to 2.5 it took some addons several years to re-appear in Blender’s list. The list for 2.79 was extended to mark the end of the series. I’ve already removed the majority of broken addons from 2.8 release. One common theme is that if an addon is useful and people need it for their daily work, they seem to get fixed rather quickly. The addons project is largely run by volunteers and resources (people to help) are few and far between. Focus is on 2.8 release addons working properly, It’s simply not possible to fix all addons in the given time with limited resources. If there’s a particular addon you need updated that was in Blender 2.79, your welcome to ask it’s status. Please note that the current maintainers of addons have been working very hard to make Blender 2.8 addons release as stable as possible. With many addons abandoned by the original Authors, it’s made it difficult to keep hold of all the addons, many will not make a return to release.
It’s not as simple as writing a script to update the api, each addon needs to be approached individually and tested.

because of I’m not dev, something I don’t know . Thanks for your explanation.