Add method to check if a physics server is enabled

[caimantilla]

It doesn't make much sense to be able to manually toggle the physics server, but not be able to check whether or not it's enabled.
My use case is that the game I'm working on has an editor tool which needs to enable the physics server to scan the level's collisions, which I then form a grid out of. The physics server is then disabled when the method finishes execution, but what if it was enabled before? Anything which relies on the physics server having been active is now broken. It'd be better to be able to restore the state rather than always disable it.
A similar case might appear in the future, where I'd only need the server to be active mid-frame when a mouse movement is detected to cast a ray to terrain, and then I can restore the server state once the ray has been cast.
The only caveat is that I think this would break compatibility with third-party physics engines like Jolt. It should only take a few lines to fix, though.

[Zireael07]

Would be nice to use it in some functions to prevent people being surprised that physics doesn't work in tool scripts

[Calinou]

Since set_active() and is_active() are both exposed, we can surely expose an active property now. This should be feasible while preserving compatibility. Setters/getters will disappear in the class reference in favor of the property, but that's OK.

[caimantilla]

Since set_active() and is_active() are both exposed, we can surely expose an active property now. This should be feasible while preserving compatibility. Setters/getters will disappear in the class reference in favor of the property, but that's OK.

Ooh, good point. I'll update the PR soon with active implemented as a property.

[raulsntos]

Since set_active() and is_active() are both exposed, we can surely expose an active property now. This should be feasible while preserving compatibility.

Note that this will break compat in C# until #90002 is merged.

[caimantilla]

Since set_active() and is_active() are both exposed, we can surely expose an active property now. This should be feasible while preserving compatibility. Setters/getters will disappear in the class reference in favor of the property, but that's OK.

Since set_active() and is_active() are both exposed, we can surely expose an active property now. This should be feasible while preserving compatibility.

Note that this will break compat in C# until #90002 is merged.

The C# PR has been merged and I believe I made the changes needed for active to be a property.
Am I missing anything?

[AThousandShips]

Suggested change

	<description>
	<description>
	Overridable version of [method PhysicsServer3D.is_active].

[caimantilla]

Is there some way that I can amend the commit with this change? The docs say that PRs should usually use just one commit...

[AThousandShips]

You can just use git commit --amend and then push with git push -f

[Mickeon]

Poking to see if there is interest. It seems like the feature itself is fine, but it really cannot be merged currently. If you do not have the time or expertise to develop this further, feel free to say so and someone perhaps could take it from here.

[caimantilla]

Poking to see if there is interest. It seems like the feature itself is fine, but it really cannot be merged currently. If you do not have the time or expertise to develop this further, feel free to say so and someone perhaps could take it from here.

Ah, sorry, yeah, I've been busy. I've been meaning to update all my PRs eventually, just haven't felt much motivation to since 4.3 is in feature freeze anyways and I'm waiting for stable to update my game dev fork