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

CREATEPROJECT, ENGINES: Add natvis for engines #4107

Closed
wants to merge 5 commits into from

Conversation

henke37
Copy link
Contributor

@henke37 henke37 commented Jul 14, 2022

This makes it more user friendly to work with various engine types in the debugging panels.

@henke37 henke37 changed the title CREATEPROJECT, DIRECTOR: Add natvis for director engine CREATEPROJECT, ENGINES: Add natvis for engines Jul 14, 2022
@henke37 henke37 force-pushed the natvis branch 8 times, most recently from 2244866 to e35d9c0 Compare Jul 19, 2022
@bluegr
Copy link
Member

bluegr commented Jul 24, 2022

Looks good at a first glance. What else needs to be done here?

@henke37
Copy link
Contributor Author

henke37 commented Jul 24, 2022

I want to test the MTROPOLIS stuff, has been a pain to find a demo that doesn't error() instantly (something about a list modifier using an unsupported version).

And of course, I'd like to add support for more engines. And maybe even tweak create_project to automatically add the files to the project, removing the need to mess with the user global folder.

@henke37 henke37 marked this pull request as ready for review Aug 30, 2022
@bluegr
Copy link
Member

bluegr commented Sep 18, 2022

Looks good overall. Since we will potentially add more natvis files in the future, it would be good if they are placed in the same folder, e.g. /devtools/create_project/natvis/

@sev-
Copy link
Member

sev- commented Sep 18, 2022

This doesn't really belong to the main repository. If you want to maintain a set of these things, then a separate repo is more suitable.

@sev- sev- closed this Sep 18, 2022
@henke37
Copy link
Contributor Author

henke37 commented Sep 19, 2022

This is just expanding an existing feature? Was it wrong to include it in the repo in the first place?

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