Document.save stop support on photoshop latest 24.1.0

Photoshop UXP Plugin API
,
1

Hi everyone,
When trying write a plugin UXP and test on photoshop ver 24.1.0, I got the message box error:

error1
error1380×121 2.99 KB

After several times, I figure out that I used the command: document.save(); instead of batchPlay.
I think I will change that script to use the batchPlay for UXP plugin.

Code:

import * as Photoshop from “photoshop”;
//hard code for first document of the list document has opened on photoshop (actived document)
const document = Photoshop.app.documents[0];

=> but for CEP extensions, I have only solution is use document.save();
If end-user use CEP extension on window and trying to open photoshop ver 24.1.0 => it’s will push the error message.

Any idea for this case? offical document or blog post for the update of the photoshop.

Thank in advanced.

2

I trying to use Photoshop ExtendScript instead of document, old but gold :smiley: thank everyone.

3

If I remember correctly, UXP doesn’t allow ESM imports and you have to use CommonJS instead, eg:
const { app } = require("photoshop")

1 Like
4

Or in this case I guess this would also work? At least I use it like this in all my UXP plugins

import { app } from "photoshop"

Don’t know what is ESM, so maybe I’m talking nonsense here :sweat_smile:

5

@Karmalakas that’s ESM! I was under the impression that UXP couldn’t handle them natively and required the use of Webpack or similar to bundle up first.

More on ESM vs CJS

1 Like
6

Oh, so this works only with Webpack in UXP? Then ignore my comment - I use Webpack :sweat_smile:

7

Possibly, if I’m honest Webpack is some dark magic I seem to have accidentally got to do what I want without understanding it fully :rofl:

1 Like
8

@Lichhuun in case you missed the gist of all that - try using Common JS imports instead of ESM (see thread above for more details).
As I understand it, ExtendScript is going to be mothballed completely and replaced with UXP and so your workaround will eventually cease to work.

9

Yeah, my solution just finished the situation of the user. I may try the new one better.
Thanks