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.

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

VisualShader resource's inspector uses "Node3D" instead of "Spatial" #95455

Closed
tetrapod00 opened this issue Aug 12, 2024 · 1 comment · Fixed by #95464
Closed

VisualShader resource's inspector uses "Node3D" instead of "Spatial" #95455

tetrapod00 opened this issue Aug 12, 2024 · 1 comment · Fixed by #95464

Comments

@tetrapod00
Copy link
Contributor

Tested versions

4.3rc3, 4.2.2

System information

Windows 10

Issue description

In the inspector of a VisualShader resource, Mode incorrectly uses "Node3D" instead of "Spatial" to refer to the Spatial shader mode/shader_type.
Godot_v4 3-rc3_win64_VuqxNDtDYd

In the Create Shader window, it is correctly called "Spatial".
Godot_v4 3-rc3_win64_o246Svj1dV

Did this get auto-replaced at some point during the Spatial->Node3D rename?

Steps to reproduce

  • Create new VisualShader resource. Choose "Spatial" in the mode dropdown.
  • Select the new visual shader in the filesystem. In the inspector, observe that the Mode dropdown displays "Node3D" instead of "Spatial".

Minimal reproduction project (MRP)

N/A

@tetrapod00
Copy link
Contributor Author

tetrapod00 commented Aug 12, 2024

Looks like this line is the source of the "Node3D" string:

p_list->push_back(PropertyInfo(Variant::INT, PNAME("mode"), PROPERTY_HINT_ENUM, "Node3D,CanvasItem,Particles,Sky,Fog"));

Also, throughout that same file, "Node3D" is used to refer to the spatial mode within comments.

// Node3D, Vertex

Looks like it was changed from "Spatial" to "Node3D" in #37340; but Spatial shaders never ended up being renamed, so it was a false positive.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants