-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.5k
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
[Merged by Bors] - Useful error message when two assets have the save UUID #3739
Changes from 1 commit
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -93,6 +93,15 @@ impl AssetServer { | |
} | ||
|
||
pub(crate) fn register_asset_type<T: Asset>(&self) -> Assets<T> { | ||
if self | ||
.server | ||
.asset_lifecycles | ||
.read() | ||
.contains_key(&T::TYPE_UUID) | ||
{ | ||
panic!("Error while registering new asset type. Asset with UUID: {:?} is already registered. Can not register another type with the same UUID", | ||
T::TYPE_UUID); | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. could you also log There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Ideally it would be possible to include the type name of the first type too, although I don't know if we store that information There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Added type name, but i don't think there is a way to get the original type. We only have trait object, so we can't get the type from it. |
||
} | ||
self.server.asset_lifecycles.write().insert( | ||
T::TYPE_UUID, | ||
Box::new(AssetLifecycleChannel::<T>::default()), | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
rather than grab a read lock and then a write lock immediately after, I think we should just grab a single write lock and reuse it across both cases (especially given that the "read only" case is the "unexpected" / "uncommon" case).