-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 97
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Improve a property list's mapping to internal organization of scripts for better Inspector UX. #2803
Comments
Any PR for this would be related, to some extent, to godotengine/godot#44879 and godotengine/godot#48201 since the generated names for GDScript, C#, VisualScript, NativeScript, and PluginScript would need to include global script class information if present. Furthermore, it would be a good idea to confine the name generation logic to a single method in the ScriptServer. |
I recently built Godot 4 and noticed that the Inspector is actually already rendering the script classes' categories. I will have to look at the code and test it with script types other than GDScript, but it's promising that it already is handling inherited properties' differences automatically, unlike how things were in 3.x. Might not even need this proposal. |
As far as I know godotengine/godot#32428 was only reverted in 3.2, so it's still in |
Also implemented for C# in godotengine/godot#63712. Since this already seems to be in |
Yes, I think we're in a good place regarding categories based on scripts right now in |
Describe the project you are working on
Wanted to add categories for each named script class in the Inspector.
Describe the problem or limitation you are having in your project
Was introduced by godotengine/godot#32428, but had to be reverted later. I had attempted to use
Script.get_script_property_list()
to isolate only the properties which belonged to each script in the inheritance hierarchy and insert category faux-properties accordingly.The only reason I resorted to
Script.get_script_property_list()
was because callingget_property_list()
returned all properties and I needed to know which ones were specifically coming from the attached Script. However, the Object/Script API makes no effort to understand how the given Script internally organizes itself relative to other scripts in the same language. That is, given aBase
script and aDerived
script that extendsBase
,Derived.get_script_property_list()
will return properties that belong to bothBase
andDerived
.As a result, to differentiate which properties belong to which actual script files, one must get N lists (one for each class in the hierarchy) and iterate through, each time comparing names (at a minimum, N names, assuming each class has at least one property) to map the properties to each Script accordingly. This is unnecessary, tedious, and slow.
In addition, this ignores all dynamic properties from instance-specific
_get_property_list()
calls so they don't end up included in the generated set of properties. That's why the original PR was reverted in the first place.Describe the feature / enhancement and how it helps to overcome the problem or limitation
Amend the scripting language's implementation of
get_property_list()
so that the instance-specific return value already incorporatesPROPERTY_HINT_CATEGORY
faux properties to separate each sub-collection of properties from each script as the ScriptInstance generates the list. This allows each language to dictate how its internal organization translates to a flat generated list of properties with CATEGORY subsections without the core Object/Script API having to be involved. Then the Inspector simply has to use those categories as they appear rather than adding theScript Variables
category.Describe how your proposal will work, with code, pseudo-code, mock-ups, and/or diagrams
Script Variables
category inObject::get_property_list(...)
.If this enhancement will not be used often, can it be worked around with a few lines of script?
While categories can be added via scripts, it is quite verbose to do so. There are proposals to make it more concise, e.g. #1255, but that would still require users to add an
@category
annotation to every property just to make it part of the correct script. This is too cumbersome to expect users to deal with.Is there a reason why this should be core and not an add-on in the asset library?
It's a matter of good UX that properties belonging to each class are displayed as such, so it really should be handled internally.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: