Functions copied from one instance of GDevelop to another keep the source extension prefix in their instructions.

[D8H]

Describe the bug

Functions copied from one instance of GDevelop to another keep the old extension prefix in instructions.

Note that copy paste works fine within the same Gdevelop instance.

To Reproduce

Steps to reproduce the behavior:

1. Open 2 instances of GDevelop.
2. Create a blank project in each.
3. Import a different extension in each project.
4. Copy a behavior (or several functions) that uses other functions or properties of the extension to the extension of the other GDevelop instance.

Expected: there should not be any "unsupported instruction". Note that this is an extreme case where all the instructions are property related. there is no issue with build-in function instructions.

Workaround

Renaming the source extension to match the destination extension before copy-pasting it make it works.

Other details

• GDevelop 5.0.126
• It's not something that's done every day, so that's fine.

[Silver-Streak]

As far as I know, I'm not sure this is considered so much a bug as unsupported. Last I heard multiple instances of GD5 being open at once is considered unsupported.

If you copy from one instance, paste into notepad (it'll paste json), close the project, open the other project, then copy/paste from the notepad, does it still cause this issue?

[Bouh]

Yes, I also agree that this is not a bug.
However, as events have evolved it is now time to be explicit about what is unknown/unsupported.
We can easily display on the line the prefix of the instruction.
For example:

[tristanbob]

Yes, I also agree that this is not a bug. However, as events have evolved it is now time to be explicit about what is unknown/unsupported. We can easily display on the line the prefix of the instruction. For example:

I think your suggestion would be VERY helpful!
Without this, users have to use their browser's developer console to find out what is happening.

[tristanbob]

I just found this suggestion from @Bouh again, and I wanted to make sure it gets considered. It should be an easy and useful improvement for troubleshooting extensions.

It might be better to create a new feature request instead of hiding it in this issue. @Bouh do you want to create a new issue?

[Bouh]

I just found this suggestion from @Bouh again, and I wanted to make sure it gets considered. It should be an easy and useful improvement for troubleshooting extensions.

It might be better to create a new feature request instead of hiding it in this issue. @Bouh do you want to create a new issue?

Hi

Yes, I open up a new suggestion in discussions #4374