I have been bashing my head about this and can't seem to figure it out. In another engine, I could make a struct, then make an array of that struct that I could then edit in the inspector. There seems to be no way of doing this that I can find in Godot.
I want to have a Resource that holds the starting Value and Type of multiple faces on a dice. For example, one side could have "2 Damage" while another has "Heal 3." (this is a first-time godot experiment inspired by Slice&Dice). Every tutorial I watch however makes it seem like, if I want to do so, I'd have to make a completely new Resource for each combination of Value and Type (Damage 1 Resource, Damage 2 Resource, etc.)
class_name DiceResource extends Resource
class DiceFaceData:
export var BaseValue = 0
export(Resource) var Type = preload("Resources/DiceFaceTypes/Damage.tres")
func _init():
Type = 2
BaseValue = preload("Resources/DiceFaceTypes/Damage.tres")
export(Array) var Faces = [DiceFaceData.new()]
I cannot get DiceFaceData to show up in the Inspector's array, or be on the list of object types for an array. Extending Object doesn't work. Extending Node means I have to instantiate it, which I don't want to do for an editor-only Resource.
I find it hard to imagine Godot doesn't have anything like this available. Is there anything I can load in the inspector as just data and not have to instantiate it? Another option is create two arrays, one with int and another Resource, but that seems inconvenient to fill out. Or should I just give up with Resources and make everything a Node attached to a Node attached to a Node? Thanks!
Godot version 3.4.3
EDIT: If you're someone coming from Unity or Unreal, what you're looking for is Resource. While compared to ScriptableObjects or DataAssets from those other engines, that's not the complete answer. You would think, because of the way those game engines handle it, you can only create custom SO or DA as assets in the filesystem/content browser, but you can also use Resources as instanced classes. Instead of creating a new Resource in the filesystem, you can use
export(Resource) var n = preload("res://MyResourceScript.gd").new()
In the inspector, you can choose from the list New MyResourceScript and create it. You won't be referencing an externally made Reference file, you'll be creating a custom one right there. And look at the below answer as well on good tips for using Resources in cool ways.
First of all, I want to say that I sympathize. Custom resources and the inspector do not work well. There is a solution on the work… However that does not mean that the only thing we can do is keep Waiting For Godot.
Observations on your code
About your code, I want to point out that DiceFaceData is not a resource type. You could write it like this:
class DiceFaceData extends Resource:
export var BaseValue = 0
export(Resource) var Type = preload("Resources/DiceFaceTypes/Damage.tres")
func _init():
Type = 2
BaseValue = preload("Resources/DiceFaceTypes/Damage.tres")
And… That solves nothing.
And, also, by the way, I remind you can put it on its own file:
class_name DiceFaceData
extends Resource:
export var BaseValue = 0
export(Resource) var Type = preload("Resources/DiceFaceTypes/Damage.tres")
func _init():
Type = 2
BaseValue = preload("Resources/DiceFaceTypes/Damage.tres")
And… That is not the solution either.
Something else I want to point out is that GDScript has types. See Static typing in GDScript. Use them. To illustrate…
This is a Variant with an ìnt value
var BaseValue = 0
This is an int, typed explicitly:
var BaseValue:int = 0
And this is an int, typed implicitly with type inference:
var BaseValue := 0
And if you were using types Godot would tell you that this is an error:
BaseValue = preload("Resources/DiceFaceTypes/Damage.tres")
Because BaseValue is an int, and you setting a resource to it.
The Array of Resources problem
First of all, this is a Variant that happens to have an Array value, and it is exported as an Array:
export(Array) var Faces = []
Let us type it as an Array:
export(Array) var Faces := []
And sadly we cannot specify the type of the elements of the arrays in Godot 3.x (we need Godot 4.0 for that feature). However we can specify how we export it.
So, this is an Array exported as an Array of Resource:
export(Array, Resource) var Faces := []
See Exporting arrays.
Before you could not get your custom resource type to show up. And now you have the opposite problem: all the resource types show up. And this includes your custom resource type, if it in its own file.
You would guess that we need to specify the resource type we want:
export(Array, DiceFaceData) var Faces = []
And that would be correct if it were a build-in resource type. But it is a custom one. We are expecting this to be fixed in a future version. Meanwhile we will have to leave it with export(Array, Resource).
Mitigating the problem with an addon
To alleviate the pain of having all the possible resource types, consider using the addon "Improved resource picker" by MakovWait. You can find it on itch, or on github.
A proper solution
Anyway, we can do better. But you are going to need to make your script a tool script (you do that by putting tool on the top of the script, and it means that the code from the script can and will run on the editor).
We are going to define a setter with setget, and in there we are going to make sure the elements are of the correct type:
export(Array, Resource) var Faces = [] setget set_faces
func set_faces(new_value:Array) -> void:
Faces = []
for element in new_value:
element = element as DiceFaceData
if element == null:
element = DiceFaceData.new()
Faces.append(element)
Now, in the inspector panel when you increase the size of the array, Godot will insert a new null element to the array, which makes the setter we defined run, which will find that null and convert it to a new instance of your custom resource type, so you don't have to pick the resource type in the inspector panel at all.
A "hacky" solution
As you know, this does not work:
export(Array, DiceFaceData) var Faces = []
However, we can replace an export with _get_property_list. What happens is that Godot asks the object what properties it has to show up in the inspector panel. Godot does this by calling get_property_list And it will statically report the ones it found while parsing (the ones with export). However, Godot also defines a function _get_property_list where we can add more at run time.
See also Advanced exports.
Which begs the question, could we possibly make it work with _get_property_list? Kind of. The The code like this:
var Faces := []
func _get_property_list() -> Array:
return [
{
name = "Faces",
type = TYPE_ARRAY,
hint = 24,
hint_string = "17/17:DiceFaceData"
}
]
It will show up on the inspector as an array where the elements can only be of your custom resource type.
The issue is that it causes some error spam. Which you might or might not be OK with. It is your project, so it is up to you.
I know it looks like voodoo magic in part because we are using some undocumented stuff. If you want an explanation of that 24 and that 17/17: see How to add Array with hint and hint_string?.
About the sub-resources
Every tutorial I watch however makes it seem like, if I want to do so, I'd have to make a completely new Resource for each combination of Value and Type (Damage 1 Resource, Damage 2 Resource, etc.)
I'm not sure what you are getting to with "a completely new Resource", but yes. A resource is an instance of a resource type. And each of those combination would be a resource.
Perhaps "Damage", "Heal" and so on are resources too. Let us see… I'm guessing that is what the Type is for:
export(Resource) var Type = preload("Resources/DiceFaceTypes/Damage.tres")
Godot would be showing all the resource types it is aware of, which is a pain. I'm going to suggest a different approach than those above for this: Make an String enumeration.
export(String, "Damage", "Heal") var Type:String
That will show up as a drop down list on the inspector panel, with the options you specified.
Why String and not int? Ah, because you can then do this if you so desire:
var type_resource := load("Resources/DiceFaceTypes/" + Type + ".tres")
I'm assuming that those have the code that actually does damage or heal or whatever.
Alright, but when you add a new type of dice face, you would have to come here and update it… Or do you? With the power of tool scripts we are going to update that list to reflect the files that actually exist!
First of all, we are not going to use export, so it will be just:
var Type:String
And now we can export it from _get_property_list. There we can query the files. But before we do that, so we are clear what we have to do, the following code is equivalent to the export we had before:
func _get_property_list() -> Array:
return [
{
name = "Type",
type = TYPE_STRING,
hint = PROPERTY_HINT_ENUM,
hint_string = "Damage,Heal"
}
]
No undocumented stuff here.
Our task is to build that hint_string with the names of the files. And that looks like this:
const path := "res://"
func _get_property_list() -> Array:
var hint_string := ""
var directory := Directory.new()
if OK != directory.open(path) or OK != directory.list_dir_begin(true):
push_error("Unable to read path: " + path)
return []
var file_name := directory.get_next()
while file_name != "":
if not directory.current_is_dir() and file_name.get_extension() == "tres":
if hint_string != "":
hint_string += ","
hint_string += file_name
file_name = directory.get_next()
directory.list_dir_end()
return [
{
name = "Type",
type = TYPE_STRING,
hint = PROPERTY_HINT_ENUM,
hint_string = hint_string
}
]
Ah, yes, set the path constant to the path of the folder where the resources types you have are.
Addendum post edit
I want to elaborate on this example:
export(Resource) var n = preload("res://MyResourceScript.gd").new()
Here we are exporting a variable n as a Resource, which will appear in the Inspector panel. The variable is currently a Variant, we could type it Resource:
export(Resource) var n:Resource = preload("res://MyResourceScript.gd").new()
And then we don't need to tell Godot to export it as a Resource, because it is a Resource:
export var n:Resource = preload("res://MyResourceScript.gd").new()
Something else we can do is preload into a const. To be clear, preloads are resolved at parse time. Like this:
const MyResourceScript := preload("res://MyResourceScript.gd")
export var n:Resource = MyResourceScript.new()
This way, if you need to use the same script in multiple places, you don't need to repeat the path.
However, you might not need the path at all. If in the script res://MyResourceScript.gd we add a class_name (at the top of the script):
class_name MyResourceScript
Then we don't need to use preload at all. That name will be available everywhere, and you can just use it:
export var n:Resource = MyResourceScript.new()
Where is that resource stored?
Potentially nowhere. Above we are telling Godot to create a new one when our it initializes our object (e.g. which could be a Node, or another Resource - because, yes, Resources can have Resources) and those would only exist in RAM.
However, if you modify the Resource from the Inspector panel, Godot needs to store those changes somewhere. Now, if you are editing a Node, by default they go to the scene file. If you are editing another Resource, then it goes to wherever that Resource is stored. To be clear, scenes are resources too (PackedScene). And, yes, that means a file can have multiple Resources (A main resurce and sub-resources). You could also tell Godot to store the Resource in its own file from the Inspector panel. The advantage of giving a file to a Resource is in reusing it in multiple places (multiple scenes, for example).
So, a Resource could be stored in a file, or not stored at all. And a resource file could have a Resource alone, or it could also have sub-resources as well.
I'll take a moment to remind you that scenes can have instances of other scenes inside. So, there is no line between scenes and the so called "prefabs" in Godot.
… Did you know?
You can save the resources you created in runtime, using ResourceSaver. Which could be a way to save player progress, for example. You can also load them using load or ResourceLoader (in fact, load is a shorthand for ResourceLoader.load).
In fact, if you can use load or preload on something, it is a Resource. Wait a minute, we did this above:
const MyResourceScript := preload("res://MyResourceScript.gd")
Yep. The Script is a Resource. And yes, you can create that kind of resources in runtime too. Create a GDScript object (GDScript.new()), set its source_code, and reload it. Then you can attach it to an Object (e.g. a Node) with set_script. You can now start thinking of meta-programming, or modding support.
I have an issue where I get two different results from Typescript's type check when I import a component from another file vs define the component in the same file where it's used.
I made a sandbox to describe question in more detail: https://codesandbox.io/s/typescript-error-1l44t?file=/src/App.tsx
If you look at Example function, I'm passing in an additional parameter z, which shouldn't be valid, therefore I'm getting an error (as expected).
However if you enable L15-L22 where ExampleComponent is defined in the same file, then disable or remove the ExampleComponent import from './component' on L2, suddenly Typescript stops complaining.
Any help would be appreciated. Thank you!
If there's any extra information I can give, please let me know.
This is because your are refining a type in one scope, but if you export that value you don't also get those refinements.
In other words, when you create the value in the same file, Typescript can infer a more specific subtype. But when it's in another file it just imports whatever the most broad type that it could possibly be.
Here's a simpler example:
// test.ts
export const test: string | number = 'a string';
test.toUpperCase(); // works
This works because typescript observed that test is a string because of the assignment of a string literal. There is no way that, after executing the code of that file, test could be a number.
However, test is still typed as string | number. It's just that in this scope typescript can apply a refinement to a more narrow type.
Now let's import test into another file:
// other.ts
import { test } from './test'
test.toUpperCase() // Property 'toFixed' does not exist on type 'string | number'.
Refinements only get applied in the scope where they were refined. That means that you get the more broad type when you export that value.
Another example:
// test.ts
export const test = Math.random() > 0.5 ? 'abc' : 123 // string | number
if (typeof test === 'string') throw Error('string not allowed!')
const addition = test + 10 // works fine
// other.ts
import { test } from './test'
const addition = test + 10 // Operator '+' cannot be applied to types 'string | number' and 'number'.(2365)
In this case the program should throw an exception if a string is assigned. In the test.ts file, typescript knows that and therefore knows that test must be a number if that third line is executing.
However, the exported type is still string | number because that's what you said it was.
In your code, React.ComponentType<P> is actually an alias for:
React.ComponentClass<P, any> | React.FunctionComponent<P>
Typescript notices that you are assigning a function, and not a class, and refines that type to React.FunctionComponent<P>. But when you import from another file it could be either, so typescript is more paranoid, and you get the type error.
And, lastly, for a reason I haven't yet figured out, your code works with a function component, but not with a class component. But this should at least make it clear why there's a difference at all.
So I'm trying to create a simple react application to render a mxGraph that I'm loading from a file. I can load the model, but some shapes aren't rendering correctly. The problem is that they are a specific shape, that are part of the floorplan package, and I can't find a way to include those shapes in my code.
ps.: I'm new to working with mxGraph.
Things I tried
First thing I tried was downloading the mxFloorplan.js file into my application, and import it, like so:
// App.tsx
import './models/mxFloorplan'
const mx = factory({
mxBasePath: './models'
})
let graph: mxGraph
...
Because the docs on extending mxShape show that I should register a new shape: mxCellRenderer.registerShape('customShape', CustomShape); and the mxFloorplan.js file does that.
I then simply added this to the beggining of the file:
// mxFloorplan.js
import Graph, {
mxShape,
mxUtils,
mxCellRenderer,
mxPoint
} from 'mxgraph'
...
But then I get this error:
Then I thought that I needed mxCellRenderer to be linked to my graph instance? So I tried moving one of the shape definitions into App.jsx to test:
// App.jsx
const mx = factory({
mxBasePath: './models'
})
let graph: mxGraph
function mxFloorplanWall(bounds: any, fill: any, stroke: any, strokewidth: any)
{
mx.mxShape.call(this); <-- Error: "Expected 2 args, but got one"
this.bounds = bounds;
this.fill = fill;
this.stroke = stroke;
this.strokewidth = (strokewidth != null) ? strokewidth : 1;
};
/**
* Extends mxShape.
*/
mx.mxUtils.extend(mxFloorplanWall, mxShape); <-- Error: "Property 'extend' does not exist on type mxUtils
// ... more code
mx.mxCellRenderer.registerShape(mxFloorplanWall.prototype.cst.WALL, mxFloorplanWall); <-- Error: mxFloorplanWall type not compatible with expected.
Really don't know how to solve these ones. On my research I only find references to
mxCellRenderer.registerShape('name', CustomShape), so not really sure on the rest.
How it looks
Here is how the diagram looks like (ignore the arrow and labels, please):
Here is what I'm actually rendering (the "black boxes" have shape=shape=mxgraph.floorplan.wallU):
As described in https://jgraph.github.io/mxgraph/docs/js-api/files/shape/mxShape-js.html, you must pass a constructor to mxCellRenderer.registerShape
function CustomShape() { }
CustomShape.prototype = new mxShape();
CustomShape.prototype.constructor = CustomShape;
// To register a custom shape in an existing graph instance,
// one must register the shape under a new name in the graph’s cell renderer
// as follows:
mxCellRenderer.registerShape('customShape', CustomShape);
}
I guess your issues come from a wrong port of drawio code (that use a very old Javscript syntax) and is not related to React at all. It is currently unclear to me what you are exactly have implemented. Here are some hints.
If you use TypeScript, the mxCellRenderer.registerShape signature is enforced by the mxgraph types https://github.com/typed-mxgraph/typed-mxgraph/blob/v0.0.5-0/view/mxCellRenderer.d.ts#L83.
When porting the mxFloorplanWall code to Typescript you should have a constructor like in the following (please avoid any!)
export class mxFloorplanWall extends mxShape { // or extends mx.mxShape depending how you manage mxgraph imports
public constructor(bounds: mxRectangle, fill: string, stroke: string, strokewidth: number) {
super(bounds, fill, stroke, strokewidth);
}
...
}
Calling super directly set the arguments in super class and avoid the errors
// mx.mxUtils.extend(mxFloorplanWall, mxShape); <-- Error: "Property 'extend' does not exist on type mxUtils
// avoid mx.mxShape.call(this); <-- Error: "Expected 2 args, but got one"
Same if you use Javascript, prefer the ES6 class syntax to declare the mxFloorplanWall class.
In the following code, I am trying to make a class which can write something to a log file when asked via a method. Here, I am wondering if this is an idiomatic way for this purpose, or possibly is there a more recommended way, e.g., hold a separate field of file type (for some reason)? In other words, is it pratically no problem even if I hold only a channel type?
class Myclass {
var logfile: channel;
proc init() {
writeln( "creating log.out" );
logfile = openwriter( "log.out" );
}
proc log( x ) {
logfile.writeln( x );
}
}
proc main() {
var a = new borrowed Myclass();
a.log( 10 );
a.log( "orange" );
}
I believe what you're doing here is reasonable. The distinction between files and channels in Chapel is primarily made in support of the language's parallel computing theme, in order to support having multiple tasks access a single logical file simultaneously using distinct channels (views into the file, essentially). In a case like yours, there is a file underlying the channel you've created, but there's no need to explicitly store it if you have no need to interact further with it.
So I believe there is no practical problem to simply storing a channel as you have here.
I am making a custom sink by building a graph on the inside. Here is a broad simplification of my code to demonstrate my question:
def mySink: Sink[Int, Unit] = Sink() { implicit builder =>
val entrance = builder.add(Flow[Int].buffer(500, OverflowStrategy.backpressure))
val toString = builder.add(Flow[Int, String, Unit].map(_.toString))
val printSink = builder.add(Sink.foreach(elem => println(elem)))
builder.addEdge(entrance.out, toString.in)
builder.addEdge(toString.out, printSink.in)
entrance.in
}
The problem I am having is that while it is valid to create a Flow with the same input/output types with only a single type argument and no value argument like: Flow[Int] (which is all over the documentation) it is not valid to only supply two type parameters and zero value parameters.
According to the reference documentation for the Flow object the apply method I am looking for is defined as
def apply[I, O]()(block: (Builder[Unit]) ⇒ (Inlet[I], Outlet[O])): Flow[I, O, Unit]
and says
Creates a Flow by passing a FlowGraph.Builder to the given create function.
The create function is expected to return a pair of Inlet and Outlet which correspond to the created Flows input and output ports.
It seems like I need to deal with another level of graph builders when I am trying to make what I think is a very simple flow. Is there an easier and more concise way to create a Flow that changes the type of it's input and output that doesn't require messing with it's inside ports? If this is the right way to approach this problem, what would a solution look like?
BONUS: Why is it easy to make a Flow that doesn't change the type of its input from it's output?
If you want to specify both the input and the output type of a flow, you indeed need to use the apply method you found in the documentation. Using it, though, is done pretty much exactly the same as you already did.
Flow[String, Message]() { implicit b =>
import FlowGraph.Implicits._
val reverseString = b.add(Flow[String].map[String] { msg => msg.reverse })
val mapStringToMsg = b.add(Flow[String].map[Message]( x => TextMessage.Strict(x)))
// connect the graph
reverseString ~> mapStringToMsg
// expose ports
(reverseString.inlet, mapStringToMsg.outlet)
}
Instead of just returning the inlet, you return a tuple, with the inlet and the outlet. This flow can now we used (for instance inside another builder, or directly with runWith) with a specific Source or Sink.