Support GroovyScript LSP Texture Inlays #2669
Open
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
brachy84
requested changes
Dec 1, 2024
Comment on lines
+279
to
+281
| .textureBinder(TextureBinder.of(i -> OreDictUnifier.getAll(new UnificationEntry(i)), | ||
| TextureBinder.ofItem(), | ||
| i -> String.format("}) %s", i.getItem().getRegistryName(), i.getDisplayName()))) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is a bad idea since there are tons of items for each prefix
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm, perhaps no texture inlays for oreprefix then?
|
Im currently working on stuff on groovyscript which will conflict with this pr. Please dont merge it yet. Probably better to close and reopen later. |
|
I will wait for GrS, then think about the oreprefix integration. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What
This PR adds support for GrS's LSP texture inlays for the metaitem and oreprefix handlers, increasing consistency between GT's object mappers and GrS's, and making scripts easier to read.
Implementation Details
Metaitem and oreprefix textures are handled almost identically to GrS's (item and oredict), so it should be fine.
This is an experimental feature in GrS 1.2.0+, so considerations of maturity of the feature and of 1.2.0+ GrS versions should be considered.
Should textural inlay support be added for any of the other object mappers?
Outcome
Improves GrS integration
Happier modpack developers
Additional Information
None
Potential Compatibility Issues
None