Mr. Doodlezz

@Patrick Connor Bug that affects Grouping layers on stand alone versions of Affinity Photo only, macOS & iPad affected so far. Does not affect Studio-link Photo. Does not affect stand alone Designer.

Speaking from experience with scripting CorelDRAW, this is likely to come back and bite us at some point in the future, namely when scripting is added.  Reasoning:  It's not uncommon to script operations on groups selected by name or by Z-position in the layer stack.  If you can't create a group with exactly one object, then you can't apply the same script that you would normally apply to a group.  In some cases, the user could set things up with a layer instead of a group (there is no requirement to have more than one object in a layer), but this is not always possible, especially when scripting a serious of operations that may move and/or create objects between layers.

Hi Affinity,
When a single layer / object selected then grouped using either Arrange > Group (or the CMD+G shortcut) or Layers panel > Group, the app creates a new, empty group instead of a new group containing the selected layer / object. This requires the user to manually move the previously selected layer / object into the new group. 
This bug is present in the standalone Photo app, not in the Photo persona within Publisher. It's also present on the Photo iPad app.

I'm on a Mac running the latest OS. I'm using Photo 2.0.3.
As you can see in the attached video, I performed six tests: 
A1. a single object selected. Layer > New Group: new empty group created, as expected.
B1. a single object selected. Arrange > Group: new empty group created, not as expected.
C1. a single object selected. Layers panel > Group: new empty group created, not as expected.
A2. two objects selected. Layer > New Group: new empty group created, as expected.
B2. two objects selected. Arrange > Group: objects grouped, as expected.
C2. two objects selected. Layers panel > Group objects grouped, as expected.
This is different from V1 for me. Performing actions B1 and C1 would result in the single object being grouped as expected in the previous version. 
Thanks!
311875476_ScreenRecording2022-12-22at11_48_17PM.mov.4c7b1bcdac43edbeae31df2cf2b49e52.mov

That's correct. The fill layer will have the colour that was originally recorded, a subsequent Edit/Fill... command in the macro will show a colour dialog but the chosen colour sets the opacity of the fill depending on the greyness of the colour chosen using the colour patch. Hence my klungy workaround using a white pixel layer with Colour Overlay fx which I described above and provide the FoxFill macro to illustrate the point
Edit: Well the charcoal is looking good so that'me finished for no

That works fine, but of course you would have to record a separate macro for each different color you want, so it is not as useful as it could be if the macro itself allowed you to choose the color.

Late to the Adobe Firefly party, but, I have been playing around with Firefly for two days now, and, I am VERY impressed with the results!
Much joy and easy to bring hours after hours with Firefly… Recommend others to join the Beta-part of Firefly.

No it's not. It's a computer program and it does the same thing every time as it adheres to strict rules which, errr, haven't been published
 
I admire your 'at this point' optimism, Affinity macros are no match for PS Actions and they are not really macros ie the recorder doesn't store keystrokes, look at the farce with the clipboard where you can copy/paste an image and the macro ends up containing the image. Hours of fun but not really if you are trying to get a job done
Anyway, good luck again, I have a barbecue to light

I don't understand your term nesting. What I described was a means to salvage a hypothetical 65 step macro which had an error at step2
You can't edit macros, all you can do is disable steps with the checkboxes and append commands to the end by recording new steps
So in that case, the defective macro is replaced by a new front end which then calls the old first macro with the first two steps disabled ie one defective macro becomes two. It's not elegant and I don't do it, I prefer to get all the steps correct and re-record it completely. However, this clunkiness can help if you're trying to perfect a long macro as you can keep trying different approaches at the end knowing that the first part is ok
I believe it's possible to construct macros as sort of modules which you can then use in various SupremeCommanderMacros™©® where the modules can be called however and in what order you want but I don't do that either
I've already pointed to the problem with selecting layers, the clipboard is next to useless, resizing stuff is a nightmare best avoided, there's no file saving other than what New Batch Job can do
Good luck with your quest, you'll probably hit the same wall that many of us have, sometimes you'll get a lightbulb moment, sometimes it's best to give up
 

I'm always amazed how much plasticity a simple Lighting filter can add to an otherwise rather flat image.
I used the Paint Mixer Brush quite extensively, painting over a stock photo of a lily with a coarse bristle brush and adding some layer effects.
This was just for fun and to unwind, nothing serious. 😌
I thought I'd share it anyway, maybe it inspires someone to try something similar. 😊
Cheers!

For a few days now I've been playing around with layer effects and some procedural filters – it's super fun and I love the results it can generate!
This is the result this morning, based on my own logo and 100% pure Affinity Photo magic, and (except for the very last couple of steps) nondestructive.

Maybe I'll release a macro for this sometime, if I can manage to squeeze it into a clean sequence.
It'll work with almost any kind of base – images, texts, vector layers.
This is what the base result will look like after the macro is applied, everything else is layer effects (and a background texture):

 

I'm a bit short of time at the moment, hopefully this picture tells a story. Editing macros is not possible and the workarounds are woeful, it is what it is

No, it's the macro that is recorded in the history not the macro steps contained within, so you would undo the macro and consequently all of the steps contained therein. I'm assuming you'd like to be able to expand the recorded macro in the history to step back a few steps or simply to see the process has been run correctly?

The Macro feature is very rudimentary, but this is the case with a lot of Affinity brushes, assets, styles etc have little in the way of edit-ability or organisational options. I find this odd because from my experience the majority of professionals are quite organised aka pencil straighteners, it's like everything has been done a bit half-hearted. Whether that was to get a product to market I don't know but as Affinity matures the lack of these organisational features become more and more obvious and grind workflows to a halt while workarounds are found. It's the same with Macro's it's almost like a token gesture more than a powerful ally and workarounds have to be found to fill in the gaps.

Thanks, reviewing your clip again reminds me that my "another would be" option is actually available in that panel so that would in fact be a possibility  (I rarely use that panel so had lost track of that option being there).
For the more "normal" use of the distribute option the key object would be irrelevant, but when turning that off and using manual spacing, I agree that would be relevant and useful.

Those commands space things evenly between the two ends of their shared bounding box.
How would that work with a key object?
It would make no difference at all in how the objects would be positioned - it is irrelevant to that operation.
 
In order to make it work, you would need to redefine the operation in some way:
One option would be to have the current behavior of distributing within the bounds, but then adjust the position to match the new position of the key object to its old pre-distribution position. Another would be to manually specify the amount of spacing you want to have between objects before performing the operation, rather than having it calculated for you.  
Either way this is a different function from what is currently offered.

I can't see another way to do this.  I've tried a few things and all result in 'Can't Record Set Fill'.  I'm just trying to work out the logic of being able to record adding a fill layer but not being able to record setting the fill.  I'll see if I can find out any information on this, as it is possible I've missed the point of being able to add the fill layer but not set the fill.
 

Choose the colour first then add the Fill Layer
The colour chosen does not show in the macro recording steps but the fill layer is recreated using that colour

Many things that cannot be done using mouse movement can be done using the menu selection, if a menu option exists, I know that you have to move the mouse to do that but you know what I mean.
So to that end you can create a fill layer and then from the Edit menu use Fill... and add a fill or so you would think, but, it doesn't work, how frustrating is that!!! what it appears to do is set the fill layer to a semi transparent state. 

I spent the last weekend creating a tool to convert Adobe suite .grd gradient files to .afpalette files for use in the Affinity suite.
There are so many great resources for gradients out there but no easy way to get them into Affinity applications without a lot of manual labour.
The tool is hosted on GitHub (the Javascript code is available for the curious), but all processing is done in your browser. No files are uploaded anywhere.
https://mikestimpson.com/GrdToAfpalette/
There are a few limitation around colourspace (RGB only) and transparency (not supported), and I have not tested with a huge number of .grd files. It works for what I needed 🙂

Much better. Thanks.
And yes, I see that, too. Definitely odd.

Hi @Mr. Doodlezz,
I've reproduced this here. I'm not sure why it's acting like this - I will check it out.
Thanks for your report.

It is too early for me (here on the Wet Left Coast) to really offer more than an essentially useless observation that your 'expected' result can be achieved by removing the Artboard.

Hey all,
Is this behaviour intentional and if so, why is there no difference between the content types?
Scenario:
I'm working on a design I started in Designer with multiple artboards. I decided to add some pizzazz with a raster brushes on a designated pixel layer – either in Designer's Pixel Persona or via File → Edit in Photo (either works, behaviour is the same). I add a pixel layer and draw something. I realise that I have made a mistake and want to clear the layer and start again. I usually do this with a short succession of shortcuts: ⌘+A (in the History palette this is called »Raster select all«) to marquee the whole (visible) canvas and backspace or delete/⌦.
Expected Result:
The (visible) content of the pixel layer is removed.
Issue:
In my case, for some reason, the shortcut ignores the fact that I am currently working on a pixel layer, and instead of creating a marquee selection of its contents and deleting it, it selects the parent pixel layer itself and deletes it.
Now this might not be a big deal if it's a single layer, and you might argue »Why don't I just delete the layer and create a new pixel layer (⌘+⇧+N)?«
And I'd say »Sure, that might work for single, regular layers.«
The real problem is that this also works (or rather doesn't work) for linked pixel layers. If a single linked layer is deleted, it's not so easy to fix afterwards and involves copying, pasting, positioning if you've placed them in several different groups, shapes and so on – a bit of a PIA.
I also considered »Invert Pixel Selection« (Select → Invert Pixel Selection or ⌘+⇧+I) as a different approach, as this works with photo documents. But to no avail.
But I've noticed that this behaviour works for new documents, so I'm not sure why it doesn't work for my existing document.
Any help with this? Am I doing something wrong? Is the document somehow corrupt?
I’ve attached my document, feel free to try the scenario, try to select the whole pixel layer content and delete it with the designated shortcuts while maintaining the linked layer/s itself.
Cheers
Dennis
Raster_select_all_bug.afdesign

I have asked a member of our QA team about the reversed Z order and they have indicated that this is by design.
Thanks
C

Their username is so unassuming, but they have come in with other gems in the past. I enjoy their responses. Even the snark.

I +1'ed your initial request for auto-distribute to key. You may be interested in editing your post (up to you).

Funny enough, @,,,'s method only works in the Context Toolbar for me, but not in the Toolbar version of the alignment functions which of course is what I would normally use. Weird.

Alignment handles might be helpful for your (or others') workflow also. Admittedly, breaking old AI habits is quite difficult, so I think keeping the key element method for all our alignment/distribution methods is good for helping newbies to transfer over their skills more easily. We have enough fun over here with just aligning to the "pixel grid".