Skip to content
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

add PDS file for 1.11 #176

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 11, 2017
Merged

add PDS file for 1.11 #176

merged 1 commit into from
May 11, 2017

Conversation

hansihe
Copy link
Contributor

@hansihe hansihe commented May 10, 2017

Adds an initial converted PDS file for 1.11.

There are still a few things in the file that are slightly hackish due to missing features in protodefc, but I think this is an acceptable initial state.

@rom1504
Copy link
Member

rom1504 commented May 10, 2017

Is the PDS format documented somewhere ?

@hansihe
Copy link
Contributor Author

hansihe commented May 10, 2017

As of yet, no.

@rom1504 rom1504 merged commit a46bd4b into PrismarineJS:master May 11, 2017
@rom1504
Copy link
Member

rom1504 commented May 11, 2017

so the .pds is in mcdata, but that doesn't make it magically used by things.
I guess node-minecraft-data could provide the file content as a big string.
But then we need ProtoDef-io/protodefc#10

@rom1504
Copy link
Member

rom1504 commented May 11, 2017

@hansihe btw, is there now a script to convert a .json to a .pds ? (possibly taking the doc from somewhere else)
We probably don't want to transform everything manually.

Also I think it would be better if the .json and the .pds contained the same information.

How does the protodefc json thing look like now ?

@hansihe hansihe deleted the pds_for_1_11 branch May 11, 2017 13:36
@hansihe
Copy link
Contributor Author

hansihe commented May 11, 2017

This is an example of a json spec file. The format is still very loosely defined, and it doesn't contain all the same information as a .pds file does yet, but that's planned. It is currently used by the documentation generator only.

The main thing making it hard to automatically translate a protocol.json from the current format is the semantic difference between switch/mapper and union. If I worked on it, I could definitely get it to work fairly well, but I am unsure how much time I should spend on that versus other things. What do you think?

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.

2 participants