Adjust test to account for Node::set_name() change (String -> StringName)
#1153
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Bromeon
added
quality-of-life
|
API docs are being generated and will be shortly available at: https://godot-rust.github.io/docs/gdext/pr-1153 |
Bromeon
force-pushed
the
qol/follow-api-change
branch
from
0b839b6 to
0d5b577
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Following upstream change in godotengine/godot#76560.
Fixes CI which assumed that
Node::set_name()would always take aGStringargument.This now needs case differentiation when passing Godot strings to
Node::set_name():set_name(&gstring),set_name(string_name.arg())set_name(gstring.arg()),set_name(&string_name)Some thoughts:
AsArgfor bothString/StringNameinterchangeably, but I didn't do this so far as it would be easy to miss perf-relevant conversions. An API change like this could introduce quite a bit different runtime behavior, which would be very hard to find..arg()even for the same type, to handle explicit "I take potential conversion into account" scenarios.&strand&Stringcan still be provided as arguments.