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

RemoveUnusedProperties in removePrimitiveAttributes tries to remove undefined technique #280

Closed
bkuster opened this issue May 12, 2017 · 2 comments · Fixed by #287
Closed

Comments

@bkuster
Copy link
Contributor

bkuster commented May 12, 2017

After removing the normals in the Pipeline with removeNormals a material is left without a technique. The technique referenced before the normals where removed is also no longer available. In the removeAll step of the pipeline following the removeNormals, the removePrimitiveAttributes tries to access the material and its technique at line 400 of RemoveUnusedProperties.js . The material exists, but the technique returns undefined, causing an unhandled rejection.

Im not sure if a) the material should have been removed at the same time as the technique its using was removed in removeNormals or b) the removePrimitiveAttributes function should be able to handle a missing technique.

@bkuster bkuster changed the title RemoveUnusedProperties in removePrimitiveAttributes tries to removed undefined technique RemoveUnusedProperties in removePrimitiveAttributes tries to remove undefined technique May 12, 2017
@bkuster
Copy link
Contributor Author

bkuster commented May 12, 2017

If I try to ignore the missing technique in the material, the issue reemerges in processModelMaterialCommons.ensureSemanticExistenceForPrimitive at line 806, when the program should be accessed. This leads me to believe the issue actually lies in the removeNormals step?

@lilleyse
Copy link
Contributor

removeNormals should regenerate the technique, but I guess it doesn't update the material properly. I'll look into this in a bit. Thanks for the detailed report!

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 a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants