-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 328
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
Make Frame frame_geometry a member subcomponent. #2338
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
…ay_connectee_name
This file was previously updated to XML version 30516 but we do not support this intermediate file version. I reverted the file back to its previous 30000 version and repeated the following changes: - changed minimum_activation for all muscles to 0.0. - changed min_control for all muscles to 0.0001. These changes are required for testStaticOptimization to pass. For min_control, I wanted to use 0.0 but updateFromXMLNode() strips away min_control if its value is 0.0 because it assumes it was an error from old model files.
…-core into delay_connectee_name
…-core into remove_model_name_from_abs_path
…path' into remove_model_name_from_abs_path
Co-Authored-By: chrisdembia <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: chrisdembia <[email protected]>
…path' into remove_model_name_from_abs_path
…path Remove model name from absolute path, and use absolute path (sometimes) for connectee path
…ay_connectee_name
…ay_connectee_name
@chrisdembia The reason this and some other geometry components were exposed in the first place is to allow modification of display options e.g. show/hide or scale and to make these changes persistent. As of now some of these options may not work for FrameGeometry but to remove it completely from XML and then try to find a place to include a separate Appearance object (similar to how we do for Wrap Objects) seems a bit of an incomplete solution. Sorry I didn't explain in my earlier feedback. If we can get the XML to be hidden because all the contents are the same for all FrameGeometry then that would reduce the clutter without affecting functionality though I don't know if that's possible or important at this point. |
@aymanhab I understand, and I agree we want to be able to expose certain properties of the I am fine either way. It's up to the group if we want to merge this. |
This PR is in response to @aseth1 's feedback in #2310 that the
FrameGeometry
that comes with Frames should not be exposed.This should not be merged until after #2310 is merged.
This change is![Reviewable](https://camo.githubusercontent.com/1541c4039185914e83657d3683ec25920c672c6c5c7ab4240ee7bff601adec0b/68747470733a2f2f72657669657761626c652e696f2f7265766965775f627574746f6e2e737667)