I modified one interface, but dozens of blueprints have tried it, can I change it with a script or tool in one click?
Ok, I have checked the document of Core Redirects, and it seems to be doing something like temporarily modifying the mapping of variables, functions, classes, etc. in the blueprint, but since there is always a configuration file, it is not quite what I expected.
Well...
You could create one parental blueprint and make a bunch of other blueprints that are inherited from it. Then all the changes you do to the parent will be applied to its children.
Related
As the title says.
I use a couple of scripts that extend the Unity editor functionality, like SceneAsset class or TagSelector attribute, but now I just realized I can't build my project because of them and now I have to delete all of these and replace them with normal string and fill it myself, which I was avoiding until now.
Do I use these classes only for development? I know I can use #if UNITY_EDITOR #endif so part of the code will only work if built via Unity Editor, but in my case, this seems ugly because I want to declare fields via the inspector. Do I have to declare multiple fields for the same thing and separate the usage or is it possible to make two versions for one field so I don't have to change the code?
You can't have anything using UnityEditor in a build since this namespace is completely stripped of.
You only use it so you can implement editor scripts that simply only extend the functionality of the Unity Editor itself ... custom Inspectors/Windows etc.
Make sure you
Either put these in folders called Editor! these are excluded from the build automatically
Or use the pre-processors as you mentioned
Serialized fields should be used for both, editor and build (otherwise you will always get some warning about mismatching serialization layouts). If you need them for the editor, just keep them for the build as well even if they are not really of use there - they don't hurt and nobody will see them anyway.
My question revolves around how to get behaviours described by a node-based editor to map to actions in-game. I've searched for several weeks about how to do this but can't find anything. If anyone could point me in the right direction, I'd be really grateful!
I don't know the best way to ask this question - I don't want to overload the question with what I've done, so I'll elaborate a bit below, as best I can:
I currently have a custom node-based editor I wrote for Unity, which I use to graphically edit the behaviour of bosses and NPCs. It looks like this (with the right-click menu shown):
I did find a way to get this behaviour working in-game, but it feels wonky and I'm wondering if there's a better way.
The way it works is there are two objects to be serialized per node object. I currently have these setup as scriptable objects, though if I were to do this again I'd create my own kind of serialization. These two objects are:
The Node in the editor window, containing editor scripts
The associated in-game action, to be loaded by the NPC at runtime
This creates a bit of mess in the file structure, as well as the amount of script files I need. On top of this, it's a bit tricky to manage cases where multiple actions are being performed simultaneously, and I need to change the NPC's state (e.g. phase1 to phase2 of a boss fight), which sounds to me like a design issue.
I'd be happy to share source code or more screenshots, if at all necessary. What I'm looking for is a way to approach something like this in a structured way that allows scalability for other projects (e.g. NPC behaviour for an RTS)
We are thinking of making one of our applications very modular, creating hooks for the different sections.
What would be needed to do for "injecting" a hook/models folder with its own models into the sails instance?
I tried to find if there is a sails-hook-utils or something like that that allows for late model/controller/service injection, on hooks, but found none. I'm about to create a module for it, https://github.com/luislobo/sails-hook-utils, but it would be great if anyone has some head starts on how to do it?
Well, right after digging more, I just found a module that does exactly what I need. I didn't test it yet, but will do it now.
https://github.com/leeroybrun/sails-util-mvcsloader
I'm trying to create a fiddler Inspector2 and IFiddlerExtension in the same assembly. However, I can't get the extension to load if I host the assembly in the /Fiddler2/Inspectors/ folder and the inspector won't load when hosted in the /Fiddler2/Scripts assembly. Alternately, is there a way to manually inject, let's say, the inspector in the OnLoad code in the extension (or vice versa)?
I suspect the answer is no, but does someone know if it is possible to get Fiddler to load both types from the same assembly?
Background:
I'd like to be able to provide an inspector that will provide some visualization of a given response, while an extension hosts a new tab that will configure and provide analysis over the entire set of sessions.
If I need separate assemblies, I will likely need three since I'll have common code factored into a shared assembly and then the two assemblies to be put in different locations. It's a lot of extra work for a small assembly with only a handful of types.
You're correct to note that Fiddler's partitioning of extension types makes it difficult to offer both FiddlerExtensions and Inspectors in a single assembly today.
Technically, there's nothing stopping your Inspector object from manually creating and managing a top-level tab, since the primary point of the IFiddlerExtension interface is to get your code loaded in the first place, and Inspectors are already loaded anyway.
In the future, this could conceivably be problematic as I hope to offer "delay-loaded" extension types, but that feature would almost certainly be opt-in and thus not likely to break you.
in my workpsace i do have SVN checkout classes and SVN export classes.
I seperate the classes into two working sets. The exported classes are members of another feature based project and i am not allowed to change this classes inside my workspace.
When i want to fix a bug or implement new features i want to be sure, that the exported classes are not touched.
Can i mark exported classes with a flag, that i can not modify this classes in my workspace. Something like read only would help. Does somebody knows a similar problem with an existing solution.
Thanks
There are two things I can think of that might help here.
Mark everything as read-only in the file system. If you edit in eclipse, it will prompt you if you try to edit it, asking if you want to make it read/write.
Mark everything as derived. Same type of prompting will occur, warning you it's a derived file. The problem here is that unless you have a plugin that can mark things as derived, you'll need to mark every file. (Writing such a plugin is very easy though - if you want to take this approach, email me: scott#javadude.com)
Neither of these will completely stop you, but the prompting might help (and if you do both you'll get two prompts...)
Hope this helps!