Content-Length: 914301 | pFad | http://github.com/Unity-Technologies/InputSystem/pull/2164

B2 FIX: Custom processors serialises enum by index rather than by value. by AswinRajGopal · Pull Request #2164 · Unity-Technologies/InputSystem · GitHub
Skip to content

FIX: Custom processors serialises enum by index rather than by value. #2164

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

Open
wants to merge 25 commits into
base: develop
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

AswinRajGopal
Copy link
Collaborator

@AswinRajGopal AswinRajGopal commented Apr 8, 2025

Description

Bug: https://issuetracker.unity3d.com/product/unity/issues/guid/ISXB-1474
Port 1.13.1

The issue is that the DropdownField expects a selected index (starting at 0), but the enum’s underlying values (10, 20, 30..) don't match these indices. Instead of passing the enum’s integer value directly, I have mapped the value to the correct index in the list of enum options.

An automated test added which validates that a custom input processor with an enumerated parameter integrates correctly with both the Unity Input System’s asset serialization and its UI.

The issue is that

Testing status & QA

Verified manually in windows machine with the provided repro project.
Authored an automated test to cover the fix.

Observer details of the test run:

Overall Product Risks

  • Complexity: 0
  • Halo Effect: 0

Comments to reviewers

Checklist

Before review:

  • Changelog entry added.
    • Explains the change in Changed, Fixed, Added sections.
    • For API change contains an example snippet and/or migration example.
    • JIRA ticket linked, example (case %%). If it is a private issue, just add the case ID without a link.
    • Jira port for the next release set as "Resolved".
  • Tests added/changed, if applicable.
    • Functional tests Area_CanDoX, Area_CanDoX_EvenIfYIsTheCase, Area_WhenIDoX_AndYHappens_ThisIsTheResult.
    • Performance tests.
    • Integration tests.
  • Docs for new/changed API's.
    • Xmldoc cross references are set correctly.
    • Added explanation how the API works.
    • Usage code examples added.
    • The manual is updated, if needed.

During merge:

  • Commit message for squash-merge is prefixed with one of the list:
    • NEW: ___.
    • FIX: ___.
    • DOCS: ___.
    • CHANGE: ___.
    • RELEASE: 1.1.0-preview.3.

After merge:

  • Create forward/backward port if needed. If you are blocked from creating a forward port now please add a task to ISX-1444.

@unity-cla-assistant
Copy link

unity-cla-assistant commented Apr 8, 2025

CLA assistant check
All committers have signed the CLA.

@AswinRajGopal AswinRajGopal marked this pull request as ready for review April 17, 2025 14:00
@AswinRajGopal AswinRajGopal changed the title Isxb 1482/fix custom processor serializesby index FIX: Custom processors serialises enum by index rather than by value. Apr 19, 2025
@ekcoh
Copy link
Collaborator

ekcoh commented Apr 22, 2025

@AswinRajGopal Its generally recommended to add one developer on the team and one QA as reviewers on the PR when published. This will help making sure you receive feedback on it.

Looks like there are CI failures for non-required tests and that branch is outdated. I would recommend updating the branch (which will automatically re-run CI).

@ekcoh
Copy link
Collaborator

ekcoh commented Apr 22, 2025

@AswinRajGopal I notice you have published internal URLs in this public-facing PR. This should be avoided. Instead use public URLs to issue tickets when available and otherwise only use issue number (without link). I will remove the URLs for now.

Copy link
Collaborator

@ekcoh ekcoh left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for looking into this @AswinRajGopal! Left some comments on things to address.

@ekcoh ekcoh requested a review from Pauliusd01 April 22, 2025 18:40
@AswinRajGopal AswinRajGopal requested a review from ekcoh April 23, 2025 11:42
Copy link
Collaborator

@ekcoh ekcoh left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for addressing comments. Changes look good to me now.

Copy link
Collaborator

@Pauliusd01 Pauliusd01 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

One concern I noticed is that the enum field is blank after upgrading to the new version, requiring the user to repick and save. Real problem? Any way to fix it?

@AswinRajGopal
Copy link
Collaborator Author

One concern I noticed is that the enum field is blank after upgrading to the new version, requiring the user to repick and save. Real problem? Any way to fix it?

Hi @Pauliusd01 could you please give me the steps to repro this issue? which version should I upgrade? Thanks.

@Pauliusd01
Copy link
Collaborator

One concern I noticed is that the enum field is blank after upgrading to the new version, requiring the user to repick and save. Real problem? Any way to fix it?

Hi @Pauliusd01 could you please give me the steps to repro this issue? which version should I upgrade? Thanks.

Your version. Steps are: Open the user project -> Upgrade the version to yours (package manager -> add from disk -> point to the version with your changes) -> observe the user's enum field is blank

@Pauliusd01 Pauliusd01 self-requested a review May 21, 2025 06:34
@codecov-github-com
Copy link

codecov-github-com bot commented May 24, 2025

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 81.69014% with 13 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
...nputsystem/InputSystem/Actions/InputActionAsset.cs 78.94% 12 Missing ⚠️
...nputSystem/Editor/AssetEditor/ParameterListView.cs 92.85% 1 Missing ⚠️
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #2164      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    67.78%   68.19%   +0.41%     
===========================================
  Files          367      367              
  Lines        53505    53571      +66     
===========================================
+ Hits         36268    36533     +265     
+ Misses       17237    17038     -199     
Flag Coverage Δ
mac_2021.3_pkg 5.41% <0.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
mac_2021.3_project 70.38% <36.84%> (-0.04%) ⬇️
mac_2022.3_pkg 5.19% <0.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
mac_2022.3_project 65.25% <29.57%> (-0.05%) ⬇️
mac_6000.0_pkg 5.19% <0.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
mac_6000.0_project 68.09% <81.69%> (+0.38%) ⬆️
mac_6000.1_pkg 5.19% <0.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
mac_6000.1_project 68.09% <81.69%> (+0.38%) ⬆️
mac_6000.2_pkg 5.19% <0.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
mac_6000.2_project 68.10% <81.69%> (+0.39%) ⬆️
mac_trunk_pkg 5.19% <0.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
mac_trunk_project 68.08% <81.69%> (+0.38%) ⬆️
win_2021.3_pkg 5.41% <0.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
win_2021.3_project 70.46% <36.84%> (-0.04%) ⬇️
win_2022.3_pkg 5.19% <0.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
win_2022.3_project 65.32% <29.57%> (-0.04%) ⬇️
win_6000.0_pkg 5.20% <0.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
win_6000.0_project 68.17% <81.69%> (+0.38%) ⬆️
win_6000.1_pkg 5.20% <0.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
win_6000.1_project 68.18% <81.69%> (+0.40%) ⬆️
win_6000.2_pkg 5.20% <0.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
win_6000.2_project 68.16% <81.69%> (+0.38%) ⬆️
win_trunk_pkg 5.20% <0.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
win_trunk_project 68.16% <81.69%> (+0.37%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
...System/Editor/AssetImporter/InputActionImporter.cs 49.75% <ø> (ø)
...nputSystem/Editor/AssetEditor/ParameterListView.cs 40.07% <92.85%> (+40.07%) ⬆️
...nputsystem/InputSystem/Actions/InputActionAsset.cs 80.85% <78.94%> (-0.40%) ⬇️

... and 10 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@AswinRajGopal AswinRajGopal requested a review from ekcoh May 25, 2025 03:40
Copy link
Collaborator

@ekcoh ekcoh left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Changes look ok to me, added some suggestions to motivate complex code parts for increased readability. Would also recommend checking the codecov bot suggestions for logic not being tested.

Copy link
Collaborator

@LeoUnity LeoUnity left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think the PR as it is increases the tech debt in a way that is not worth the fix.
I believe there are better ways to achieve the desired outcome, and if not I would rather take the fix without the migration.
Take a look at migrating the data during importing, let me know if you have any questions

@AswinRajGopal AswinRajGopal force-pushed the isxb-1482/fix-custom-processor-serializesbyIndex branch from 6bfc950 to a521b32 Compare May 30, 2025 11:26
@AswinRajGopal AswinRajGopal requested a review from LeoUnity May 30, 2025 11:31
Copy link
Collaborator

@ekcoh ekcoh left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Marking this Request Changes based on code being in impropriate places given that this is handling the migration in-memory (See comments).

While this PR now handles multi-version parsing I struggle with two main issues:

  • The parsing is inside the importer which is fine in one sense, but it implies this won't work (produce incorrect results), for a JSON loaded in a player via LoadFromJson directly.
  • The migration code is heavily modifying strings which is unfortunate but maybe not possible to avoid since the processor definitions are actually strings to begin with. So as long as we mark dirty the user is likely not experiencing this much anyway if existing assets are migrated in edit-mode.

It might be that migrating directly in https://github.com/Unity-Technologies/InputSystem/blob/develop/Packages/com.unity.inputsystem/InputSystem/Actions/InputActionMap.cs#L1609 reduces the complexity since this is where an action is parsed. However doing this might require the version to be parsed first prior to parsing the asset to be able to reason about the version.

@AswinRajGopal AswinRajGopal force-pushed the isxb-1482/fix-custom-processor-serializesbyIndex branch from accd69f to 8bc3ef0 Compare June 4, 2025 08:13
@AswinRajGopal AswinRajGopal requested review from LeoUnity and ekcoh June 4, 2025 08:14
Copy link
Collaborator

@ekcoh ekcoh left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for updating. Some additional (hopefully final) batch of feedback.

@AswinRajGopal AswinRajGopal requested a review from ekcoh June 10, 2025 09:01
Copy link
Collaborator

@ekcoh ekcoh left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is a smaller now which I think is good and easier to read. I think the version used in comparison in a few places needs replacing but apart from that looks good to me. But it seems the assets needs updating to pass CI.

@@ -379,6 +398,11 @@ public void LoadFromJson(string json)
throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(json));

var parsedJson = JsonUtility.FromJson<ReadFileJson>(json);
if ((parsedJson.maps?.Length ?? 0) > 0 && (parsedJson.version ?? 0) < JsonVersion.Current)
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

JsonVersion.Current here should probably be JsonVersion.Version1 since if we move on to version 2 later we do not need to do this migration step for version 1 json files?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Additionally this may be skipped if the action:

  • Do not contain actions
  • Do not contain processors

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Minor: but you might as well move these "optimization" checks into the Migrate Json to remove the complexity from here and call it unconditionally, e.g. "MigrateJsonFromVersion0ToVersion1IfNeeded(ref parsedJson)"

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes we should skip migration in case the input action doesn't contain action and processors.

parsedJson.maps[mi] = mapJson;
}
// Bump the version so we never re-migrate
parsedJson.version = JsonVersion.Current;
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This should be assigned JsonVersion.Version1 right? Current might be Version 2 or higher in the future which would make this incorrect then

internal void MigrateJson(ref ReadFileJson parsedJson)
{
var existing = parsedJson.version ?? JsonVersion.Version0;
if (existing >= JsonVersion.Current)
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This should compare to JsonVersion.Version1 instead of Current right?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes right, my bad I mis aligned the enum values. I'll modify.

@AswinRajGopal AswinRajGopal requested a review from ekcoh June 10, 2025 14:46
Copy link
Collaborator

@ekcoh ekcoh left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Changes look good to me, looks like Changelog is in conflict which needs to be fixed so the branch can be updated and CI rerun to avoid instabilities already fixed on develop.

@ekcoh
Copy link
Collaborator

ekcoh commented Jun 10, 2025

I fixed the conflict and updated the branch based on develop. Hopefully CI rerun is all green now.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants








ApplySandwichStrip

pFad - (p)hone/(F)rame/(a)nonymizer/(d)eclutterfier!      Saves Data!


--- a PPN by Garber Painting Akron. With Image Size Reduction included!

Fetched URL: http://github.com/Unity-Technologies/InputSystem/pull/2164

Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy