@LarryWoestman
I will be grateful if you review this PR
Thank you

It seems reasonable to me.

Is there any way to test this other than manually doing things with the GUI?

Also, I can see some situations where someone can end up breaking bits or other things because they have left out some operations in the job and one or more of the remaining operations depends on some material being removed that isn't being removed any more. This isn't any worse than when someone fails to include an operation when defining the job.

Also, I can see some situations where someone can end up breaking bits or other things because they have left out some operations in the job and one or more of the remaining operations depends on some material being removed that isn't being removed any more. This isn't any worse than when someone fails to include an operation when defining the job.

The main goal for me is to get more control and capabilities

I will not introduce restrictions in order to protect the user from stupid acts
User security only in his hands and head

If you give an idiot a hammer, you cannot hope that he will not break his fingers
If it breaks, these are his problems
And this does not mean that others also cannot use the hammer

This looks reasonable to me.

Thank You
I was not sure in my changes
Function super() is that i am understand not well
Also I searching the way to add argument operations as not mandatory, to not touch all tests and post scripts files

Python does have the concept of "optional" arguments. I have used that a few times in the refactored code base. I have no problem with adding the "operation" argument where you have added it.

Hope I found a compromise between safety and capabilities

That change should help make it obvious what is being exported.

Also I can add some warning message to this dialog
Something like that
Also, I can see some situations where someone can end up breaking bits or other things because they have left out some operations in the job and one or more of the remaining operations depends on some material being removed that isn't being removed any more. This isn't any worse than when someone fails to include an operation when defining the job.

My English is terrible
Maybe you can write some good warning text