adding resistance_anim to shema validation

[newfrenchy83]

If a day, a resistance abilities applied to adjacent unit is added in the core, with a proper animation, it can be validated.

[CelticMinstrel]

Um, excuse me? What are you doing renaming an existing animation without any sort of backwards compatibility? If it was just the first commit I would've merged it immediately, but the second two commits are all sorts of questionable.

[newfrenchy83]

@CelticMinstrel after the first commit the travis checking failing because apply_to=(blade,pierce,tec) key became invalid. If necessary what animation name different what name of ability who call this animation for what shema validation valid.

[CelticMinstrel]

That doesn't even make sense...

[newfrenchy83]

@CelticMinstrel look at this https://travis-ci.com/wesnoth/wesnoth/jobs/262322472#L5140
"20191202 19:43:27 error validation: Invalid key 'impact=' in tag [resistance]" after the first commit, after that, i had the choice to close this PR or change the name of animation

[CelticMinstrel]

Ah, I see the issue. The existing support for the resistance animation is [animation]apply_to=resistance, right? And you want to be able to shorten it to [resist_anim]. But… was the engine already trying to load the [resistance] tag as an animation? That seems like quite a large oversight…

[newfrenchy83]

the engine

Ah, I see the issue. The existing support for the resistance animation is [animation]apply_to=resistance, right? And you want to be able to shorten it to [resist_anim]. But… was the engine already trying to load the [resistance] tag as an animation? That seems like quite a large oversight…

Like leading_anim for [leadership] [resistance] tags for animation already exist in engine for resistance ability, but has never used in core, or elsewhere in my knowledge.

[newfrenchy83]

@CelticMinstrel i have find the problem. I believe what "resistance" in udisplay was the namz complete of animation rhen what this is "resistance_anim", i corrected rhat now.

[gfgtdf]

i'm neigher an expert on the animation wml codes, not on the shema, so i have no opinion on this.

[newfrenchy83]

The problem is what it exist an reason for what nobody using [resistance_anim], if resistance ability can be used on offense or defense only, the animation will be always played in both case, if it is possible now to filter the type of damage applied with filter_weapon for filter the call of animation, it is not the case for active_on=defense/offenses or filter_base_value.

[CelticMinstrel]

As a schema update, this looks fine. Does the[resistance_anim] tag actually get loaded as an animation in the game?

[newfrenchy83]

Yes, when I use the resistance ability instead of leadership in an Elvish Captain, and replace leading_anim tags with resistance_anim tags, the animation is played when the assisted unit plays its [defense_anim] instead of its [attack_anim]

[CelticMinstrel]

In that case, yes, this should be (squash-)merged.