[REG-1255] RGAction attribute docs #31
Conversation
abeizer
commented
Sep 11, 2023
abeizer
commented
- Changed the "RGAction" section into one on defining actions using the "RGAction" attribute
- Organized images into a subfolder to reduce visual clutter
|
|
||
| If your bot code attempts to call an action whose script is not assigned to its GameObject, | ||
| then the Regression Games SDK will produce an error and terminate that bot. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is an assumption, I've never actually tried this. If someone can tell me what actually happens I'll update this doc. If not, I'll try this out myself and see
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Unless robb changed it, that isn't what used to happen. In the past it would just ignore that action.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah I didn't touch that error handling. The only new error handling introduced would be assigning an incorrect RGAction script to a game object, because the RGAction calls a 'GetComponent' to find the expected monobehavior.
| #### Arguments | ||
| None | ||
| By default, the action's name matches the method's, but this can be overridden by passing a different name to `RGAction`. | ||
| Any parameters that the method accepts will be valid arguments in your bot code. Their names and data types must match. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Might want to clarify what "types must match" here - I believe this means that the arguments being passed from the bot code must match the primitive or serialized JSON types of the arguments?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would agree we need clarity here. As I understand it. The arguments from your bot, must match the argument names and types in the C# code.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Correct - updated for clarity
| The name of this action (i.e. an identifier). | ||
| :::info | ||
| We recommend using primitive data types for `RGAction` parameters. | ||
| Full support for reference types is coming soon. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I feel like instead of "reference" types, maybe just non-primitive?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
General question here... are array types currently supported ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Updated phrasing.
I believe arrays should be supported, my understanding is that non-primitives become an issue when they contains a field of another non-primitive type. We're recommending "please don't use them" to simplify. @rcornwall-reg is this correct? If so, we could outline this more accurately in the docs, but I'll probably need some help with wording
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh, here it is. I left a comment elsewhere but I tested it, and array types aren't supported. The serializer generates incorrect code:
return JsonUtility.FromJson<int[]>(paramJson);
We should put that as a new task 👍
| // This is called using the name "OpenContainer" | ||
|
|
||
| [RGAction] | ||
| public void OpenContainer(bool isLocked) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It may be good to add an example (maybe in a different section) of adding a "proxy method" that uses primitive types for an action that uses non-primitive types.
i.e. They have a function called AttackPlayer(GameObject player), and we add a new one called:
[RGAction("AttackPlayer")
public void AttackPlayerProxy(int playerId)
{
GameObject player = RGFindUtils....(playerId)
AttackPlayer(player)
}Basically, what I want them to know is that even if we don't support complicated types yet, there are ways around it, and it would be good for them to see an example of that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Great suggestion, added
|
|
||
| :::info | ||
| We recommend using primitive data types for `RGAction` parameters. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't see the question anymore, but I remember seeing something about array support. I tried it out and it does not work. The Serializer class generates
return JsonUtility.FromJson<int[]>(paramJson);
which gives a compiler error. We can put that as a new task 👍
|
LGTM! |
|
I believe this can be merged? |
Not yet, I have a couple questions I wanted to ask Robb but didn't get to hop into a call with him today. |
