Make mesh attr vertex count mismatch warn more readable

[torsteingrindvik]

Objective

When a mesh vertex attribute has a vertex count mismatch, a warning message is printed with the index of the attribute which did not match.

Change to name the attribute, or fall back to the old behaviour if it was not a known attribute.

Before:

MeshVertexAttributeId(2) has a different vertex count (32) than other attributes (64) in this mesh, all attributes will be truncated to match the smallest.

After:

Vertex_Uv has a different vertex count (32) than other attributes (64) in this mesh, all attributes will be truncated to match the smallest.

Solution

Name the mesh attribute which had a count mismatch.

Changelog

• If a mesh vertex attribute has a different count than other vertex attributes, name the offending attribute using a human readable name

[rparrett]

Seems to work.

Related question that doesn't need to be addressed here:

I was testing by adding an 12th vertex color in mesh2d_manual. The warning seems to imply that things should generally work with mismatched attribute counts. But it seems to crash (after emitting the warning) with errors like this:

thread 'Compute Task Pool (0)' panicked at crates/bevy_render/src/mesh/mesh/mod.rs:430:46:
range end index 192 out of range for slice of length 176

count_vertices is returning 11 in that case, which seems correct.

Is that expected or should it be followed up on in another issue?

[torsteingrindvik]

Seems to work.

Related question that doesn't need to be addressed here:

I was testing by adding an 12th vertex color in mesh2d_manual. The warning seems to imply that things should generally work with mismatched attribute counts. But it seems to crash (after emitting the warning) with errors like this:

thread 'Compute Task Pool (0)' panicked at crates/bevy_render/src/mesh/mesh/mod.rs:430:46:
range end index 192 out of range for slice of length 176

count_vertices is returning 11 in that case, which seems correct.

Is that expected or should it be followed up on in another issue?

Good point, since it's a warning and not a panic that should imply it should work at some level, but I had a panic as a consequence as well. That could be followed up in another issue/PR.