ID:1921469
 
Redundant
Applies to:Dream Maker
Status: Redundant

This feature has already been implemented, or is already achievable with existing methods.
I'm requesting a change to the way package files works. Currently, when you package the "World source files" it will package everything, with the exception of anything that is unchecked in the source directory.

While this may be the behavior intended for packaging libs, I feel that the option displayed to the user is misleading. Allow me to explain why.

Refer to this image:


As you can see, it says the following:
World source files
(So that others may edit and compile your world; this may also be used to package a library.)


Now, what happens if I'm someone who has never used this packaging method before? I've decided that the project I'm working on is no longer going to be developed. I use that option to package a backup, and then I sync it to cloud. After in which I delete the main folder on my computer.

Down the line, I revisit the project. I extract everything only to find that any and all files that were unchecked are completely gone and lost.

This feature request is here because normally I packaged and compressed my files manually. After using this built-in packaging option on a library, I lost all of the documentation I had written.

Luckily, a member in this community who had downloaded a previous version with the files included was able to provide a backup. I'd hate for the same scenario to happen to someone else with irreversible consequences.
There's an option to include extra files. But if you want a full zip, it's best to just zip the directory externally.
In response to Nadrew
Nadrew wrote:
There's an option to include extra files. But if you want a full zip, it's best to just zip the directory externally.

Sure, I understand that. However, it is still misleading to users. I can of course work around it, but I know I'm not the first nor last to misunderstand how the packaging works.

From a casual users perspective, or even a new user for that matter, it will package their source. Nothing less.
The source is only files in use though.
In response to Nadrew
Nadrew wrote:
The source is only files in use though.

With all due respect, just because a file is not in use does not mean that it should not be packaged.

People can uncheck files that they do not want compiled at that time. Perhaps it's something that's still in development and not ready to be included in a public release.
Then add it to the extra files list on the next page, that's what it's for.
I see we do not agree on this matter, but regardless I believe the packaging option to be misleading. Typing in each file and directory in the project in the next window is not intuitive for packing a source as a backup. For a library, perhaps. As a source backup, not so much.

I have a medium size project. 521 files and 94 folders.
Am I expected to first off know that anything unchecked will not be included in the backup? I do not even see a message box that warns me the files not checked will not be included.

Not to mention, I'd have to look through every single file and folder and write down which files are not checked. That's 94 folders to search. Then I have to open that window and one by one write in which files and folders should be included.

This is not intuitive.
You should always double-check backups and not rely on tools not designed to make backups. It's trivial to right-click your game folder and zip the entire thing with a tool that IS designed for backups.

The package source option has been perfectly fine for almost two decades, it does what it's supposed to do. It packages up everything needed to compile your game as it is in its current state. It's not for backing up your entire project directory. If anything, a new option for a full backup would be more intuitive.
I am in agreement with the full backup option. It should just be clear that the source backup doesn't literally make a full backup, just files in use.

Like I said, I don't have a problem manually packing mine. I'm simply making this feature request for other members in the community, especially newer ones.
I believe Lavitiz is arguing that it's just misleading and simply writing that "unchecked files are not included" would be enough to solve the confusion.

I myself haven't had much trouble with packaging the one and only library I've made, maybe at a later stage it'd make more sense to come up with a more straight forward intuitive for packaging, as it's been two decades there's probably ways to improve it.

I don't think there's any sense in adding full backup option within the IDE itself, there's many tools that accomplish that already.
Yes, I absolutely agree. A simple statement saying that "unchecked files are not included" is just as sound a solution as any.

I'm all for the IDE being updated and modernized, but that's a whole different can of worms.
The thing is, it doesn't say "backup" anywhere in there, and you shouldn't assume that's what it does.
Nadrew resolved issue (Redundant)
World source files
(So that others may edit and compile your world; this may also be used to package a library.)


Why would others edit your source without everything being included?

I'd like input from Lummox, my request is hardly redundant. All I'm asking is at minimum there is clarification.
The box is kind of text-crowded as it is. Clarification couldn't hurt, but I have doubts about its importance. Assuming it would equate to a full backup was unwarranted.
If it's not included it's not part of your source ;), nor is it required. Extra stuff has always, and always should be, included manually so you don't accidentally package up a bunch of nonsense that you don't need.

You're packaging up a working, compile-ready package, it does exactly what it says it does.

Your request to include everything by default is redundant, a request to clarify what it does, however, is not. But that would be an entirely different request.
Alright, if that is what's best. I'm not the first nor the last person to misunderstand what it was designed for. It'll be unfortunate if another developer loses big chunks of their project simply because there isn't clarification.

We can argue about wording and how others will interpret it all day, but at the end of the day potential new developers are going to be younger and less experienced anyways. Having clarification is just nice to prevent any potential damages that is prone to happening due to misunderstanding.

We are human after all.
You're literally the first person I've ever seen complain about it, and I've been here for 16 years (oh, typing that is depressing...).
I'm surprised, but to be fair I've been here 8 years and didn't even know it functioned that way-
I don't think this falls quite under the 'Warning: Coffee is hot' category, and it probably wouldn't hurt to add a 'Packages included files only' to it. It never occurred to me to think that non included files would be included in my project, but I suppose I can see how it would happen.

Just please never make the default to include everything in the folder. Dear god I tend to have a LOT of junk in there. Hundred of test graphics and such.
Page: 1 2