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

Allow pattern matching on automap input and output. #4097

Open
local-minimum opened this issue Nov 3, 2024 · 1 comment
Open

Allow pattern matching on automap input and output. #4097

local-minimum opened this issue Nov 3, 2024 · 1 comment
Labels
feature It's a feature, not a bug.

Comments

@local-minimum
Copy link

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
When working with Tiled, I design dungeons from a top-down perspective and have multiple levels / elevations by organizing the project into groups:
bild
Today I must edit the layer names of the input and corresponding output layer removing the trailing index number before I start automapping the dungeon layout. And then when I want to work on an other elevation, I need to re-add the indices and start the process over.

Describe the solution you'd like
If the automapping could be done with pattern matching like input_in%d and output_out%d so that edits to a layer called in2 only outputs to out2 would be really neat.

Describe alternatives you've considered
I've tried reading through the documentation and the issue backlog and haven't found any workaround besides the procedure I describe.
I noticed issue #428 is sort of similar, but I think, it is somewhat orthogonal.

@local-minimum local-minimum added the feature It's a feature, not a bug. label Nov 3, 2024
@eishiya
Copy link
Contributor

eishiya commented Jan 9, 2025

A request similar to this popped up on the forum: https://discourse.mapeditor.org/t/match-multiple-layers-with-automapping/7203

Of all the different ways for a single set of rules to handle multiple sets of layers, I think this sort of pattern matching would be the least problematic, as there should be no ambiguity with which layers to match. Or at least no more ambiguity than with the current system, which picks the first of multiple layers that have the same name.

Currently, the "intended" way to handle scenarios like the OPs is to have multiple copies of the same rules, with different input/output layer names. While these can be quick to create, they're annoying to manage if any of the rules need to be amended. The best way to handle changes to the rules would be to modify one copy, and then recreate the others, rather than trying to duplicate the changes in each copy.

@bjorn bjorn added missing feature It's not just a feature, it's a feature that really should be there! feature It's a feature, not a bug. and removed feature It's a feature, not a bug. missing feature It's not just a feature, it's a feature that really should be there! labels Jan 16, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
feature It's a feature, not a bug.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants