When loading csb files, prevent repeated loading of plist files

[tkzcfc]

Describe your changes

Issue ticket number and link

Checklist before requesting a review

For each PR

• Add Copyright if it missed:
  - "Copyright (c) 2019-present Axmol Engine contributors (see AUTHORS.md)."

• I have performed a self-review of my code.

  Optional:

  • I have checked readme and add important infos to this PR.
  • I have added/adapted some tests too.

For core/new feature PR

• I have checked readme and add important infos to this PR.
• I have added thorough tests.

[rh101]

Is there any reason that you can't use SpriteFrameCache::isSpriteFramesWithFileLoaded to check if a sprite sheet is already loaded?

For instance, you've added _loadedPlists, and use it like this:

if (!_loadedPlists.contains(plist + png))
{
    // ...
}

Does the following not work?

if (!SpriteFrameCache::getInstance()->isSpriteFramesWithFileLoaded(plist + png))
{
    // ...
}

[tkzcfc]

removeUnusedSpriteFrames may release unused sprite frames

[tkzcfc]

We need to reload

[rh101]

removeUnusedSpriteFrames may release unused sprite frames

Sorry, I'm not quite sure that I understand what you mean.

isSpriteFramesWithFileLoaded is implemented as follows:

bool SpriteFrameCache::isSpriteFramesWithFileLoaded(std::string_view plist) const
{
    return isSpriteSheetInUse(plist) && isPlistFull(plist);
}

It checks if the sprite sheet entry is full via isPlistFull, so if any frames were removed through removeUnusedSpriteFrames, then isPlistFull would return false, which means isSpriteFramesWithFileLoaded returns false. Isn't that the case?

[tkzcfc]

ok, so we don’t even need the _loadedPlists variable?

[rh101]

ok, so we don’t even need the _loadedPlists variable?

Sorry, yes, that is what I meant. Have you checked if SpriteFrameCache::getInstance()->isSpriteFramesWithFileLoaded works for you? If it does work, then you do not need _loadedPlists.

[tkzcfc]

Let me try

[rh101]

@halx99 I can't quite figure out how to set the unresolved conversation as resolved. I thought it was the "review changes", but that wasn't it, so please ignore the review approval listed above.