Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Fix intersect_point ignoring collision_layer #40713

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Fix intersect_point ignoring collision_layer #40713

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

bpopp93
Copy link

@bpopp93 bpopp93 commented Jul 25, 2020 •
edited by YeldhamDev
Loading

Fixes #40705.

@YeldhamDev YeldhamDev changed the title Fix #40705 - intersect_point ignoring collision_layer Fix intersect_point ignoring collision_layer Jul 26, 2020
@YeldhamDev YeldhamDev added this to the 3.2 milestone Jul 26, 2020
@akien-mga
Copy link
Member

Regression from #40193.

KoBeWi
KoBeWi reviewed Jul 26, 2020
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@KoBeWi KoBeWi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I checked and it doesn't seem to re-introduce #11159, but I have no idea why 🙃

@bpopp93
Copy link
Author

bpopp93 commented Jul 26, 2020

It seems to me that the newly added last parameter of _can_collide_with is being misused with 2d and possibly 3d physics in the fix for #40193. The arguments being passed in to potentially disable collision layer checking don't make sense to me (though I admit I'm quite new to all this).

madmiraal
madmiraal suggested changes Jul 27, 2020
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@madmiraal madmiraal left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This PR is made against the 3.2 branch, and it does reintroduce #11159, because it does effectively revert #40280 without removing the scaffolding required to make it work.

As I have suggested in the issue (#40705), I think a better solution is to fully revert #40193 and its 3.2 counterpart #40280 and find an alternative solution for #11159.

@KoBeWi
Copy link
Member

KoBeWi commented Jul 27, 2020 •
edited
Loading

it does reintroduce #11159

Eh, I messed up with testing again :I

@akien-mga
Copy link
Member

akien-mga commented Jul 27, 2020 •
edited
Loading

Superseded by #40776 (and 400a780 in 3.2).

@akien-mga akien-mga closed this Jul 27, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@KoBeWi KoBeWi KoBeWi left review comments

@madmiraal madmiraal madmiraal requested changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
archived bug regression topic:physics
Projects
None yet
Milestone
3.2
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
5 participants
@bpopp93 @akien-mga @KoBeWi @madmiraal @YeldhamDev