Basic animation support for decorators.

[0suddenly0]

Since decorators can use properties of standard types, they can also be animated, as well as basic properties.

[mikke89]

Hey, this is very cool. Although, I have actually implemented this very feature already in another branch: 8023d31.

I'd be willing to merge this in the meantime though, while we wait for the above branch to be merged. Perhaps you could take a look at that and see if there are any ideas or improvements you could make from it.

I've also written some unit tests here: 940b62f. It would be nice if you could add something like this. This one uses filter property instead of decorators which is not available in the master branch, but the idea should be the same.

[0suddenly0]

Thanks for the reply. I think your solution from the filter branch will be more correct than mine, the only drawback is the lack of support for decorator at-rule from your solution. In the near future I will try to combine these two solutions and supplement them with tests.

[0suddenly0]

I'm not sure, but maybe I should create a separate pull request to add decorator at-rule support to the filter branch, instead of copying your code to my branch?

[mikke89]

I would rather that you copied the code over to this PR. The filter branch is quite experimental, and will probably have to be re-implemented from scratch. So I'll deal with merging them later when it comes to that.

[0suddenly0]

Basically, that's all I could do. Perhaps the tests are not so correct and complete, because I am dealing with their writing for the first time, but in general everything should work correctly.

[mikke89]

Nice job. I just have a few minor comments.

The tests look good to me. I wonder if it would make more sense to make the default gradient color transparent, but in any case, that is a completely different issue.

Could you perhaps add me as a co-author, if you don't mind?

[0suddenly0]

Nice job. I just have a few minor comments.

The tests look good to me. I wonder if it would make more sense to make the default gradient color transparent, but in any case, that is a completely different issue.

Could you perhaps add me as a co-author, if you don't mind?

I was actually thinking about how to get around creating new copies of Decorator Declaration. To bypass, we can use pointers to specific variables and change them depending on the situation, because their lifetime does not depend on animations. Of course, you can get Decorator Specification separately and check their compatibility through checks, but this option seems simpler to me.

I tried to add you as a co-author, let me know if I did it wrong.

[mikke89]

I was actually thinking about how to get around creating new copies of Decorator Declaration. To bypass, we can use pointers to specific variables and change them depending on the situation, because their lifetime does not depend on animations. Of course, you can get Decorator Specification separately and check their compatibility through checks, but this option seems simpler to me.

Yeah, the approach seems good, the underlying lifetimes should be fine. Although I'm finding it quite a bit harder to follow this new code. Maybe it would help to abstract away the pointers into something like a simple DecoratorDeclarationView struct?

I tried to add you as a co-author, let me know if I did it wrong.

Looks good, thanks.

[0suddenly0]

I was actually thinking about how to get around creating new copies of Decorator Declaration. To bypass, we can use pointers to specific variables and change them depending on the situation, because their lifetime does not depend on animations. Of course, you can get Decorator Specification separately and check their compatibility through checks, but this option seems simpler to me.

Yeah, the approach seems good, the underlying lifetimes should be fine. Although I'm finding it quite a bit harder to follow this new code. Maybe it would help to abstract away the pointers into something like a simple DecoratorDeclarationView struct?

I tried to add you as a co-author, let me know if I did it wrong.

Looks good, thanks.

struct DecoratorDeclarationView {
	DecoratorDeclarationView(const DecoratorDeclaration& declaration) : type(&declaration.type), instancer(declaration.instancer), properties(&declaration.properties) {}
	DecoratorDeclarationView(const DecoratorSpecification* specification) : type(&specification->decorator_type), instancer(Factory::GetDecoratorInstancer(specification->decorator_type)), properties(&specification->properties) {}
	const String* type;
	DecoratorInstancer* instancer;
	const PropertyDictionary* properties;
};

Do you mean something like this?

[mikke89]

Yeah, at least with those members. The rest I leave to you, if you find it doesn't improve things, then that's okay too.

[mikke89]

This looks a lot better to me.

Do you feel finished with this? If so I will squash and merge this.

[0suddenly0]

Do you feel finished with this? If so I will squash and merge this.

Yes, I think I have nothing more to add or fix.

[mikke89]

Sounds good, thanks for the pull request!