The `Type` was suggesting it'd be some C++ type, definitely not values
like Scaling3D or Translation2D, resulting in a significant "brain
autocompletion error" every time I was using that type.
Unfortunately on AnimationData the trackTargetType() couldn't similarly
get renamed to trackTarget() as there's already trackTarget() that
contains the node ID the target points to, so it's trackTargetName()
instead. Renaming trackTarget() to trackTargetId() wasn't an option as
that would be inconsistent with everything else (TextureTools::image(),
MaterialAttribute::BaseColorTexture, SceneField::Mesh are all IDs but
they don't have an `Id` suffix); renaming to AnimationTrackTargetName
would keep it insanely long and wouldn't make it consistent either
(MeshAttribute, SceneFIeld, MaterialAttribute are all referred to as
"names" yet they don't have a `Name` suffix).
The main property of this feature is that it prints the bounds *in a
canonical type*, not of the actual type that's used. Yet however that
wasn't ever tested. Now it is, and it's also testing behavior for custom
attributes, which don't get their bounds printed (because the canonical
type isn't known for those).
Sometimes it's a vital piece of information, e.g. the file having no
default might lead to it being not displayed correctly as some end-user
application might think it has no scene.
Otherwise it's really, REALLY hard to discover which data are missing in
the output. Especially for files with 1700 meshes, 800 materials, 3600
textures and such.
Lists features, aliases as well as documented contents of the whole
configuration file. Useful to not need to look up online docs when
working on the command line.
They're each a totally different beast and putting them into the same
test file doesn't really make sense:
- We want to link certain plugins statically on static builds to test
certain code paths in the implementation. However this is
counter-productive for the executable tests because there we are
checking for plugin presence from the test with the assumption that
the executable and the test have the exact same set of plugins
available (or linked statically).
- The executable tests are implemented on Unix only at the moment,
thus it's wasteful to try to build it on any other platforms. Having
it in a separate file makes it much easier to deal with.
Vladimír Vondruš