Fix scenario .rnc/.rng validation errors
ClosedPublic
Actions

Authored by vladislavbelov on Apr 28 2017, 10:47 PM.

Details

Reviewers

fatherbushido
elexis

Group Reviewers

Restricted Owners Package

(Owns No Changed Paths)

Commits

rP19500: Fix scenario .rnc/.rng validation errors.

Summary

There're few missing elements in Scenario.rnc
Fixed FogColour > FogColor in Pathfinding_demo.xml
Added WindAngle
Added Camera as optional, because one map has it in script settings (I think it's ok, but if not, then it could be fixed)

Test Plan

Run validation of maps
Run the game on the Pathfinding_demo map

Diff Detail

Repository

rP 0 A.D. Public Repository

Lint

Automatic diff as part of commit; lint not applicable.

Unit

Automatic diff as part of commit; unit tests not applicable.

Event Timeline

vladislavbelov created this revision.Apr 28 2017, 10:47 PM

vladislavbelov edited the summary of this revision. (Show Details)

vladislavbelov edited the summary of this revision. (Show Details)Apr 28 2017, 10:50 PM

Build is green

Updating workspaces.
Build (release)...
Build (debug)...
Running release tests...
Running cxxtest tests (306 tests)..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................OK!
Running debug tests...
Running cxxtest tests (306 tests)..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................OK!

http://jw:8080/job/phabricator/911/ for more details.

Harbormaster completed remote builds in B1315: Diff 1516.Apr 28 2017, 11:32 PM

fatherbushido added inline comments.Apr 29 2017, 7:17 AM

binaries/data/mods/public/maps/scenario.rnc
122 ↗	(On Diff #1516)	Perhaps you could already add Rotation

(Using `trang file.rnc file.rng" one can generate the rng file from the rnc file and thus avoid inconsistencies or bugs (rP19352))

fatherbushido added a subscriber: • leper.Apr 29 2017, 8:15 AM

It's ok.
I set accepted but wait for any comments.

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Apr 29 2017, 8:19 AM

In D391#16167, @elexis wrote:

(Using `trang file.rnc file.rng" one can generate the rng file from the rnc file and thus avoid inconsistencies or bugs (rP19352))

I guess he did, we spoke about that on irc. Did you Vladislav?
(the conversion script is near the validation script anyway)

vladislavbelov added inline comments.Apr 29 2017, 9:34 AM

binaries/data/mods/public/maps/scenario.rnc
122 ↗	(On Diff #1516)	It's not supported yet, so I shouldn't add.

In D391#16172, @fatherbushido wrote:

In D391#16167, @elexis wrote:

(Using `trang file.rnc file.rng" one can generate the rng file from the rnc file and thus avoid inconsistencies or bugs (rP19352))

I guess he did, we spoke about that on irc. Did you Vladislav?
(the conversion script is near the validation script anyway)

Sure, I used trang. Probably @elexis suggest to make it autobuild on server.

Closed by commit rP19500: Fix scenario .rnc/.rng validation errors. (authored by FeXoR). · Explain WhyMay 1 2017, 12:26 PM

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.

In D391#16169, @fatherbushido wrote:

It's ok.
I set accepted but wait for any comments.

I could have writen or not, the result would be the same...

fatherbushido mentioned this in D425: Update the xml validator tool.May 4 2017, 9:43 AM

In D391#16731, @fatherbushido wrote:

In D391#16169, @fatherbushido wrote:

It's ok.
I set accepted but wait for any comments.

I could have writen or not, the result would be the same...

Vladislav responded here to both questions. Which comment were you waiting for?

Asking that could have the contrary effect as the one expected...
EDIT: To be more explicit, it's not the place to ask such things. Sometimes it's better to not have answers. Sometimes it's better to let things rip.

In D391#37329, @fatherbushido wrote:

Asking that could have the contrary effect as the one expected...

One should expect a response to the actual question.
I do expect abandoning of unrelated patches, so it would be good if the opposite thereof is achieved.