馃悰 fix interrupt of sequence star/random + improve docs #249
Conversation
docs/manual/composites.md
Outdated
| @@ -18,10 +18,12 @@ With composite nodes, you can craft unique and dynamic Behavior Trees for your g | |||
|
|
|||
| ## Restarting a composite | |||
|
|
|||
| If a parent node restarts a child node, it means that the parent node will start the child node from scratch the next time it is ticked. This means that any progress made by the child node will be reset, and it will start its execution from the beginning. | |||
| When a parent node restarts, it means the whole composite node begins its evaluation again from the beginning. This does not interrupt the child nodes. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If I'm not mistaken, there can only be one running node - that is until parallel composites are implemented. But until then, I think the docs should reflect this fact and be clear about it as not to confuse the new users. Therefore, I suggest the last sentence be rewritten as follows: This does not interrupt the running child node.
docs/manual/composites.md
Outdated
| ## Ticking again a composite | ||
| ## Interrupting child nodes | ||
|
|
||
| A sequence may interrupt any `RUNNING` child node in case a child returns a `FAILURE`. The `interrupt` method will be called on all child nodes of the currently evaluated child node. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A sequence may interrupt any
RUNNINGchild node in case a child returns aFAILURE.
The interrupt can also happen in other cases, not just when a child returns a failure - for example, if a reactive sequence encounters a running child, that comes before the child that was running last frame, the old running child is interrupted. I'd say this part of the sentence can be left out: in case a child returns a FAILURE.
docs/manual/composites.md
Outdated
| ## Ticking again a composite | ||
| ## Interrupting child nodes | ||
|
|
||
| A sequence may interrupt any `RUNNING` child node in case a child returns a `FAILURE`. The `interrupt` method will be called on all child nodes of the currently evaluated child node. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The
interruptmethod will be called on all child nodes of the currently evaluated child node.
The term child nodes typically denotes only the direct children, i.e. the first-order descendants. For clarity, I'd suggest using the term descendant nodes to denote all descending nodes and say ... will be called on all descendant nodes.
Also, instead of the currently evaluated child node, I'd say the interrupted child node just to make it clear which node we are referring to.
docs/manual/composites.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| In other words, restarting a child node means that the parent node will give the child node a fresh start, while ticking it again means that the parent node will let the child node continue its execution from where it left off. | ||
| If a parent node ticks a child node again, it means that the parent node will immediately tick the child node again on the next frame, without waiting for the current frame to finish executing. This allows the child node to continue its execution from where it left off without resetting its progress. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
..., without waiting for the current frame to finish executing.
Is this correct? This sounds like the child node is ticked multiple times in the same frame. Isn't each node only ticked at most once on every frame?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Brain fog on my part. I will correct this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If I may add one more thing, I'd also maybe elaborate more to clarify that all that ticking again really means is that the parent composite node carries on with its execution from that given child node. Meaning, that it's not only that given child node that is ticked, it is potentially its sibling nodes following it, if the node completes and allows its siblings to be ticked too.
Description
Usually, any sequence node that fails should correctly interrupt its running children, if there are any. This worked correctly for
sequenceandreactive sequencebut not for sequence star nor sequence random.Also addressed docs, which hopefully closes #248